Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Despite a host of incentives the nuclear industry needs one more – a place for waste
disposal.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S.,
there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of
natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions
from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and
insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan
guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a
place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over
the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in
Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling
pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space.
Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste
storage allowing interim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.
Solvency
The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United States
should pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening
up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks
that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim
storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed
by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.
SDI 2008 7 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The IPCC panel, which was established by the UN to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic
information relevant for the understanding of climate change, includes a major expansion of nuclear power
as a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the world’s climate. “This is a no-
brainer: any realistic plan to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way must include a vast
expansion of nuclear power. The IPCC is right to include nuclear energy as a necessary part of the
climate change solution,” said Domenici, who is the author of “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the
Promise of Nuclear Energy.”
Even when the full fuel cycle is accounted for nuclear power is the best way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or mercury
either. Even when taking into account "full life-cycle emissions" -- including mining of uranium,
shipping fuel, constructing plants and managing waste -- nuclear's carbon-dioxide discharges are
comparable to the full life-cycle emissions of wind and hydropower and less than solar power. But we
have to be realistic about the limits of these alternatives. As it is, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
generate about a fifth of the nation's energy. Wind accounts for about 1%, and solar even less than that. Any
increase in the number of nuclear power plants can help -- even if they won't solve the whole problem. More
important from the standpoint of displacing fossil fuel, nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours a
day. Solar and wind can't do that. Nuclear is the only current technology that fits the bill.
SDI 2008 9 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Global warming causes disease spread, environmental damage, and escalating regional conflicts
Podesta, Stern, and Batten 2007 (John, Todd, and Kit, President, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy, and Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Capturing the Energy Opportunity, November 2007, Accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf)
Climate change presents the United States with multiple foreign policy challenges quite apart from those directly
connected to our nation’s deepening dependence on imported oil, which we will detail shortly. These challenges include, for
example, increased border stress resulting from the impact of climate change-induced storms and droughts in Mexico and the
Caribbean. Or consider the complications posed by ever-scarcer water supplies to political progress in the
Middle East. Perhaps the greatest climate change-induced geopolitical challenge in the shortterm, though, will
arise in the developing countries in the earth’s low latitudes. In these countries, even a relatively small
climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, the spread of disease, and natural
resource competition. Such conditions fuel political turmoil, drive already weak states toward collapse, and
threaten regional stability. According to a recent report by 11 former Army generals and Navy admirals, climate change is
a “threat multiplier for instability” in volatile parts of the world.16 Nigeria and East Africa pose particularly acute
challenges. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, will confront intense drought, desertification, and sea-level rise in the
coming years. Already, approximately 1,350 square miles of Nigerian land turns to desert each year, forcing both farmers and
herdsmen to abandon their homes.17 Lagos, the largest Nigerian city, is one of the West African coastal megacities that the IPCC
identifies as at risk from sea-level rise by 2015.18 These conditions, coupled with rapid population growth projections, are likely
to force significant human migration and contribute to regional political and economic turmoil. The threat of regional turmoil is
higher yet in East Africa because of the concentration of weak or failing states, numerous unresolved political conflicts, and the
severe effects of climate change. Climate change will likely create large fluctuations in the amount of rainfall in East Africa
during the next 30 years—a 5 percent to 20 percent increase in rainfall during the winter months would cause flooding and soil
erosion, while a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in the summer months would cause severe droughts.19 Such volatility will
jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of people and the economic capacity of the region: Agriculture constitutes some 40 percent
of East Africa’s GDP and employs 80 percent of the population.20 In Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, water
shortages have already led to the desertification of large tracts of farmland and grassland. Fierce competition between farmers
and herdsmen over the remaining arable land, combined with simmering ethnic and religious tensions, helped ignite the first
genocide of the 21st century.21 This conflict has now spilled into Chad and the Central African Republic. Meanwhile, the entire
Horn of Africa remains threatened by a failed Somalia and other weak states. Beyond Africa, the IPCC warns that
“coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at
greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.”22 In South
Asia, this will generate political tension as displaced people traverse the region’s many contested borders and
territories, such as those between Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China. In Bangladesh, for example, the
combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire
environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix, one with severe regional
and potentially global consequences.23
Nuclear Power Requires Global Cooperation To Solve Climate Change, Proliferation, And
Economic Objectives
Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy
takes focus, lexis, bc
"(I) will discuss with Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh how best to take forward this reform agenda, which
is something the United Kingdom attaches great importance to." He will iterate that sentiment in a speech
on Monday which 10, Downing Street has said will be one of his major speeches of 2008. It will dwell on the
need for significant modernization of the international framework of governance in order to make it
representative and effective. Climate change is another issue that will be high on his agenda during the visit
to India. Appreciating India's advocacy of common but differentiated responsibility, the British prime
minister said in the interview that developed countries should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon, high-growth model of economic development. "Climate
change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Caused by developed countries, the weight
of responsibility to solve it lies with us," Mr Brown said. "However," he added, "countries need to act
together to have the greatest hope of solving this shared dilemma." In that context, Mr Brown said that
nuclear energy is non-polluting and it can make a significant contribution to limiting climate change. He
suggested that, under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yield
economic benefits to India in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. "The UK and India agree on
the potential of civil nuclear energy to be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy, which could
make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainable
development, economic growth and limiting climate change," he said. The British prime minister reiterated
his country's support for the proposed India-USA civil nuclear cooperation agreement. "The UK supports
the India-USA civil nuclear cooperation initiative. We believe that the deal can make a significant
contribution to energy security, development, economic and environment objectives for India and the
international community," he said. Britain has unveiled a new energy policy, the centrepiece of which is a
decision to support the building of new nuclear power stations. Mr Brown said the UK and India are
actively engaged on non-proliferation and arms control issues, too. "We engage with India on a full range of
non-proliferation and arms control issues, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums, including the UN
and organizations related to it, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. He
asserted that "such international engagement is increasingly vital in reducing proliferation risks,
including that of terrorists gaining access to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and
their means of delivery". Mr Brown said he is looking forward to building on the very close relationship
enjoyed by the UK and India during Monday's summit. His discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh will centre on how both countries can work together to meet common challenges for the future at all
levels - bilaterally, multilaterally or globally. "At a bilateral level, (I am) keen to strengthen education and
trade links between the two countries," Mr Brown said. A senior level delegation of UK business leaders
and heads of some of the UK's top universities will accompany him to India. "We hope to conclude a
number of agreements at the summit. Another important issue for (me) is that of development.
Revitalizaing uclear energy is key to sustaining the long term growth of the U.S. economy.
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007.
www.oxfordeconomics.com VF
With a substantial program of new investment, the US nuclear energy industry could support a large
number of new jobs and value added - a peak of up to 400,000 jobs and $30 billion of value added.
Without this investment, this opportunity will be lost, and the capacity of the industry could dwindle to
zero by the 2050s. The jobs it supports will also gradually disappear. · In this study, we assess the
economic benefits of a reinvestment program for the nuclear energy industry. This program would
involve two overlapping phases of work: o The investment phase – the construction and manufacture of a
new fleet of nuclear reactors and nuclear recycling plants o The operation phase - when the reactors and the
recycling plants start generating electricity · The economic benefits of the investment program have three
components: o Direct employment and value added – how many people are employed in the construction,
manufacturing and operation of the new nuclear energy industry as a result of the reinvestment program, and
how much value added to they create? o Indirect employment and value added – how many jobs and how
much value added are supported down the supply chain to the nuclear energy industry, in each of the three
phases of the project? o Induced employment and value added – how much do the direct and indirect
employees of the nuclear energy industry spend in the US economy, and how many jobs and how much value
added is supported by that spending? The three kinds of economic benefit (peak effects) in each of the
phases are set out in the charts below. Without investment in the nuclear industry, these benefits would
be lost. Of course, demand for electricity would be unlikely to change, so generation capacity would have to
be created or expanded in other ways, for instance with coal power, and that would imply an associated
quantity of direct, indirect and induced jobs and value added, as above. · Crucially, however, a large
proportion of the jobs that would be supported by the nuclear investment program are manufacturing
jobs in the production of the capital goods necessary to support the nuclear energy industry. These are
high-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on R&D and fixed investment: jobs that
the US economy can ill afford to lose. Alternative ways of meeting US electricity generation needs
would be unlikely to create so many high-value-added manufacturing jobs.
Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear
power leadership.
Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.
At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist these
consumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.
Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to
supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power
as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking
plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently
stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does
China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by
the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans
to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear
option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our
judgment that the market alone won't do it).
Invigorating the nuclear industry is key to our nuclear energy leadership and competitiveness.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008
Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.
Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental
benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing
from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can
accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States
greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the
early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use
of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy
leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to
compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier
position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not
become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States
invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service
and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo
multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear
design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:
o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;
o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and
o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.
Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than one
million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of the
growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close attention to
the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers and operators,
as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be needed to build,
operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater education on these
issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political,
industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs that will help ensure
America’s nuclear leadership is restored.
SDI 2008 14 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Investors need a clear signal that the federal government will allow nuclear power to
flourish.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment:
Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nna
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm
Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It
can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset
America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their
dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However,
the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace
nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is
not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead,
investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in
encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state,
and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost bil-
lions of dollars because of bad public policy. The United States once led the world in commercial nuclear
technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies.
However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regulated the U.S.
commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets,
consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries.
This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacle
to investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of
nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.
U.S. Nuclear power growth would result in a stronger Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and
safer world
William C. Sailor 2001 “How to Think About Proliferation and Nuclear Power”
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/april/ap3.html
To date, the commercial nuclear industry has played very little, if any, role as a bridge to national
entry into the nuclear arms race, nor are there any known cases in which individuals or sub-national
groups have stolen materials from nuclear power facilities for use in weapons. However, this does not
mean that there is nothing to worry about. It is important to address the need of developing countries for
increased energy supplies. To reduce the reliance of these countries on fossil fuels, it is desirable for the
developed world to share nuclear technology with them, under proper safeguards, as stipulated in
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now is the time to cautiously consider the greater use of nuclear
energy under the most stringent safeguards standards. Power reactors could be provided (below cost) to
recipient nations under a "clean development mechanism" within the UN framework on Climate
Change. Other forms of energy production could also be exported under this mechanism, with the
choice of technology left to bilateral agreement. However, the recipient would be required to ratify the
NPT and accept the most recent IAEA safeguards in order to receive subsidized reactors. A
comprehensive set of initial inspections would be required. Fuel cycles which produce weapon-usable
material anywhere in process would be disallowed from receiving the financial incentives. If there is to
be growth of nuclear power in the US it could also be focused in ways to prevent nuclear proliferation
or theft of nuclear materials in other countries. The US should welcome imports of nuclear power
components and systems from manufacturers throughout the world, but constrain the imports so that
they originate only in countries that will allow comprehensive IAEA inspections. Peaceful cooperation
between nations is a potential benefit that has been recognized since the Atoms for Peace era. These
experiences and changes should be integrated into a new program, one that is centered on
strengthening the NPT and promoting a comprehensive safeguards regime.
SDI 2008 15 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important
bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the United States to advance its
nonproliferation objectives.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise
great weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote its
nonproliferation objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined.
The fact that no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led to
erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, the
U.S. share of the global nuclear market has declined significantly, and several other countries have
launched their own nuclear power programs and have become major international suppliers in their
own right. It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fuel
designers and manufactures for light water reactors have now been acquired by their non-U.S. based
competitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial
nuclear power, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S.
nuclear plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a
technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation
can be expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plants
and nuclear fuel technology and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will
have to work especially hard to maintain and, in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it
wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs.
American solvency of the issue of nuclear waste disposal is key to maintaining the
international credibility necessary to enacting non-proliferation initiatives.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear
wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S. nuclear power program and will be vital to
implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to discourage the spread of sensitive
nuclear facilities to other countries.
U.S. federal government participation is key for the U.S. Enrichment Company to raise the
necessary capital to complete technological project.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
Today the U.S. enrichment company, USEC, has a world market share of less than 30% of the uranium
enrichment market. In addition, USEC only supplies about half of total U.S. requirements for
enrichment services, the vast majority of which are actually obtained under contract with an arm of the
Russian government for down-blended HEU. Furthermore, the U.S. Government's gas diffusion enrichment
technology that is currently being used at the Paducah, Kentucky plant by USEC is over 50 years old and uses
vast quantities of electricity which puts it at an increasing cost disadvantage. Although USEC plans to
replace this aging plant with an advanced U.S. centrifuge enrichment technology during the next several
years, the company has recently noted that it will “need some form of investment or other participation by
a third party and/or the U.S. Government to raise the capital required in 2008 and beyond to complete
the project…” Further, the centrifuge enrichment facility being constructed in New Mexico by LES,
Inc. uses Urenco centrifuge technology.
SDI 2008 16 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
U.S. needs to add nuclear power plants to internationally extend its influence and stop
proliferation.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
The influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to
achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade
and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world.
[Thus], if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most
conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American
nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping
the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active
supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in
the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are
unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of developments underscore the
importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied
by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintain in effective policies to
achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is
perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As
the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international
nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market.
However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to
participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on
foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability
of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United
States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal
industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to
promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear
cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear
programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called
consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear
materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced
from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to
develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent
and vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in
order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expends
taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the
Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to
U.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible.
The U.S. is no longer dominant in the market for commercial nuclear power.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
Thus, while the U.S. remains a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear power, it
no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four decades ago. To the extent that U.S. NSSS and nuclear fuel
designers and manufacturers are able to reassert themselves on a technical and commercial basis,
opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation might be expected to increase.
However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide NSSS and nuclear fuel technology
and services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to
maintain and, in some cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in
international nuclear affairs.
SDI 2008 17 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will be crucial to the
success of U.S. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and
advance its nonproliferation objectives.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is
independent of U.S. policy and prerogatives. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these
programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote
the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to
exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more
effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs.
Preventing the spread of nuclear fuel facilities by establishing fuel leasing and cradle-to-
grave programs is the most effective way of discouraging the spread of enrichment and
reprocessing facilities.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
In this connection, one the of the most severe challenges facing the nonproliferation regime in the years
ahead is to prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities such as enrichment and
reprocessing plants. The goal of establishing fuel leasing or cradle-to-grave programs by the U.S. is an
important component of GNEP, and, if achieved, it could prove to be far more effective than other
approaches in discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. The countries that are
likely to have the greatest interest in a cradle-to-grave program will be those with small or modest-size nuclear
power programs that would likely face serious technical, economic and political problems in managing their
spent fuel or disposing of their nuclear wastes.
U.S. international power and influence over the nuclear power industry is key to
nonproliferation.
A American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
If the United States hopes to continue to exercise strong and specific influence internationally in
nonproliferation matters in the future, it can best achieve this objective by remaining an active player in
international nuclear affairs by providing advanced nuclear power systems, uranium enrichment services
and nuclear fuel to other countries; and by maintaining its ability to develop and apply advanced nuclear
technologies. A revival of nuclear power in the United States with new nuclear power plant orders
should greatly help enhance U.S. power and influence in international nuclear affairs, but we must also
seek to once again be a major supplier of nuclear power technology and equipment world-wide.
Conversely, if the U.S. nuclear power program starts to diminish significantly through the retirement of
old nuclear power plants without new replacements, then its voice in civil nuclear matters and
nonproliferation will decline internationally, even though the U.S. may remain a superpower on the
political level.
SDI 2008 18 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The impact is nuclear proliferation. Only U.S. collaboration can effectively solve.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
It is easy to exaggerate the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation associated with the use of civil nuclear power
programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation. States with civil nuclear power programs could divert nuclear
material to nuclear weapons; they could exploit a civil nuclear power program as a cover for acquiring
materials, equipment and technology for a nuclear weapons program; they could also try to use peaceful
nuclear cooperation as a means of acquiring skills for developing nuclear weapons. There have been
instances in which states have misused civil nuclear programs and peaceful nuclear cooperation in these ways.
However, these abuses of peaceful nuclear power programs have been few in number, while the vast majority
of states have adhered faithfully to their nonproliferation obligations. In addition, it is easy to overstate the role
that civil nuclear cooperation can play in advancing nonproliferation goals. U.S. collaboration in the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy with other states has been a crucial catalyst for the acceptance of the
international safeguards system as well as other aspects of the nonproliferation regime. However,
peaceful nuclear cooperation is only one of several tools that the United States and other states have
used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the orderly growth of nuclear power and
the pursuit of nonproliferation objectives must go hand in hand and can be made mutually reinforcing.
SDI 2008 19 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
WITH NEWS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GROWING MORE alarming day by day, some are stepping
forward to suggest that nuclear energy-a form of energy that Americans had largely rejected by the 1980s-is the
best and fastest way to reduce the United State's enormous carbon footprint. The term "nuclear renaissance,"
promoted by the nuclear-energy industry, is finding its way into news articles featuring interviews with well-known
environmentalists like Patrick Moore, co-founder oh Greenpeace, who hold up low-carbon nuclear power as the
answer to global warming.
It’s quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about
greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants – the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for
producing electricity.
SDI 2008 20 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear Power Is Best Weapon To Solve Global Warming While Maintaining Economic
Development
Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc
JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint nuclear
energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global warming.
They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying action on
climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed to tackle
climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies, reduce poverty, and
improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back Australia's membership of a
global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear and clean coal technology will
be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President George Bush said the PM had been an
international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well, since he's against Kyoto he doesn't
care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is preposterous.'' Backing Mr
Howard's nuclear ambitions, Mr Bush said the power source was a vital weapon in the fight against
global warming. ''If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us -- if we take the
issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does -- then you should be supportive of
nuclear power,'' he said. ''After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any
greenhouse gases.'' Under the nuclear deal, the US agreed to support Australian membership of the
Generation IV International Forum -- a global body working on next-generation reactor technology. The
fourth-generation reactors are being designed to be safer, cheaper and more efficient. Australia will also join
-- as revealed by the Herald Sun in July -- the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a US-backed initiative to
expand the use of safe, zero-emission nuclear energy. The deal, the product of months of negotiations, comes
amid intensive talks on an APEC-wide agreement. Insiders said delegates were a long way from a consensus,
which Mr Howard hopes will be the summit's major outcome. The APEC Business Advisory Council, which
comprises as many as three business representatives from each of APEC's 21 economies, will be urging
leaders to set a transparent and consistent policy framework to combat global warming as soon as possible.
''What APEC is saying to those leaders is there is a real sense of urgency in the business community for the
policy makers to set clear rules,'' said Mark Johnson, chairman of retailer AGL Energy Ltd and head of a
business advisory council to APEC leaders. He said business must accelerate innovation, research,
development and investment in new technologies. ''For all this to work, clear market-based policies are
required for business so business can make judgments about where to invest,'' he said. ''Consumers are going
to have to change their behaviour in response to the cost of climate change, and business is going to have to
change its behaviour markedly.'' Mr Bush said cutting greenhouse emissions did not require slowing of
development. The US had managed to curb its own greenhouse emissions last year while growing its
economy, he said. A government-endorsed report earlier this year found Australia could have 25 nuclear
reactors up and running by 2050. Mr Howard recently moved to calm concerns about the nuclear industry by
guaranteeing local residents a veto on the location of any reactor.
SDI 2008 21 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear Power Is The Only Viable Alternative Energy—Otherwise Fossil Fuels Will
Dominate Power
John Dyson and Matt Bennett, board member of the group Third Way, former chairman of the New York
State Power Authority. vice president for public affairs of Third Way, 9-16-07, Boston Globe, Just say `oui' to
nuclear power, lexis, bc
In 2005, nuclear power produced 19 percent of all US electricity; solar made up one-30th of 1 percent.
If we don't build substantial new nuclear capacity, the alternative isn't going to be wind farms and
solar arrays - it's going to be fossil-fueled, carbon-spewing plants. Those are the truths facing Democrats,
however inconvenient. The real question facing our leaders is how to shape the future of nuclear power to
make it as sustainable as possible, both environmentally and economically.
SDI 2008 22 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Even when you account for the full fuel cycle nuclear power’s CO2 emissions are
substantially lower than fossil fuel.
NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, No Date given
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissionsanalysis/
Nuclear power plants do not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when they generate
electricity. Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to
renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or
natural gas-fired power plants. Although nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases when
generating electricity, certain processes used to build and fuel the plants do. This is true for all energy
facilities. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with construction of the plant,
mining and processing the fuel, routine operation of the plant, disposal of used fuel and other waste
byproducts, and decommissioning. Nuclear Comparable to Renewables Numerous studies demonstrate that
nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind
and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. For example, a
University of Wisconsin study (PDF) found that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons
of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at
14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour, respectively. In May 2005,
British Energy completed a study into the life cycle impacts of generation from its Torness nuclear power
station. The assessment covered the entire fuel cycle and included nuclear waste, spent fuel and CO2 , SO2
and NOx emissions. The total emissions of CO2 from electricity generated at Torness power station,
calculated on a lifecycle basis, are estimated to be just over 5 g/kWh. This compares to emissions of CO2
from a typical UK coal plant of around 900 g/kWh, based upon the operational stage alone. Typical gas
power station CO2 emissions are around 400 g/kWh. Many nuclear critics have claimed that new nuclear
plants would need to use lower ore uranium, which requires more energy to extract, and therefore
would have higher emissions. In response, British Energy conducted a follow-up study that showed
even with a very low uranium ore grade, CO2 emissions would remain very small. If Torness used this
ore for all its fuel, its emissions would only rise from 5.05 g/kWh to 6.85 g/kWh. An International Energy
Agency (IEA) analysis found that nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-
equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower’s range ranked lower, at 2 to 48 grams
of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are
lower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of
carbon dioxide-equivalents), according to the agency. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants
ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour.
SDI 2008 23 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
ADV Brownouts/Blackouts
Expanding nuclear power is the way to increase electicity generation and cut co2 emissions.
Barnett, David 2007. Staff writer, May 17, Canberra Times, “Nuclear energy now our only option”, p.
17/A. Lexis VF
The two cleanest means of generating power are nuclear and solar, but nuclear produces enough. Solar doesn't. The
world's first civilian nuclear power reactor came on stream 50 years ago. There are now 440 reactors generating
power in 31 countries and producing 15 per cent of the worlds electricity. In France, 80 per cent of electricity is
generated in nuclear power stations. In the OECD generally, it is 22 per cent. The International Energy Agency in its
World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure
supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it. Switkowski expects
demand for electricity to more than double by 2050, while at the same time pollution and emission levels must
be brought down on today's levels. The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by
2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18
per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020. They appear to be safe. Switkowski's
commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs.
Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low. Britain, the
United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having
concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said.
Australia has a number of geologically stable sites suitable for nuclear waste, which takes 50 years to decay.
If scheduled plants come on line nuclear power will substantially increase the amount of
electricity generation.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-
4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the
Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing
effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant
technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear power plants
come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough to power
28 million American households.
ADV Dependency
Nuclear Power Will End Our Dependence On Oil From Unstable Regimes
Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills, lexis,
bc
A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promised
yesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton said
nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable
regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to
build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would see
household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. They
said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, said
yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, also
expressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in
providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set
against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear
power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this
important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build
and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within
the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range
of new energy infrastructure.'
Nuclear energy would decrease the dependence on fossil fuels and help rid the environment of
harmful emissions.
Oxford Economics 2007. “Economic Benefits of Nuclear Energy In the USA.” September 2007.
www.oxfordeconomics.com VF
Moreover, maintaining the current generation capacity of the US nuclear energy industry
would also imply reducing US reliance on imports of oil to meet its energy needs – future oil
imports would fall by up to $41 billion per year (assuming an oil price of $50pb in constant 2005 prices)
as a result of the investment program compared to a baseline in which nuclear generation capacity fell to
zero. A higher oil price would clearly increase the savings: $75pb would generate savings of $62 billion per
year. Finally, nuclear energy produces electricity without the attendant carbon emissions that come
from burning fossil fuels. Maintaining the current nuclear generation capacity would mean reducing
future US emissions by up to 390 million tonnes of CO2 per year compared to a zero-new-nuclear-
generation baseline.
Nuclear power solves dependency, it’s best for the environment and will save 100,000 lives
per year from air pollution.
Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
With minor exceptions, these new plants will have to be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear
fuels. There are lots of good reasons for avoiding the use of oil and gas to generate electricity: They are
substantially more expensive than coal or nuclear fuels. World supplies are quite limited on a long-term
perspective. They are essentially our only option for providing transportation by land, sea, or air. They are
vitally needed as feedstock for manufacture of plastics, organic chemicals, and other products essential for
our technology. Paying for imported oil is a heavy strain on our national economy, and this problem is
rapidly getting worse. Our oil supplies are vulnerable to being cut off for political reasons. Oil prices
are susceptible to very large and rapid increases. Oil dependence can lead to war. For the most part,
therefore, our new electrical generating capacity must be powered by coal or nuclear fuels, although oil
and gas will still be used to some degree. Burning coal, oil, and gas leads to a wide variety of
environmental problems. They are major contributors to the greenhouse effect, which threatens to
cause highly disruptive climate changes: Agriculture will suffer severe blows like an end to growing
soybeans and corn in the South and corn and wheat in the Great Plains. Farmers will also have to deal
with increased livestock disease, and heavy damage from insect pests. Forests will undergo stress, as
some species of trees will die off and have to be replaced by others. Seacoast areas will be subject to
flooding. Waterfowl and various types of aquatic life will be seriously affected by reduction in wetlands
areas. Insect plagues, droughts, forest fires, tornadoes, and floods will increase. Burning coal is the
major contributor to acid rain which, in some areas, is heavily damaging forests and fish in lakes. This
acid rain is straining relations between Canada and the United States, and between several pairs of
European nations. But perhaps the most serious environmental problem with burning fossil fuels is air
pollution, which is estimated to be killing about 100,000 Americans every year. Attempts to solve this
problem are very expensive, and there is little reason to be confident that the limited objectives these
attempts target will solve it. Air pollution causes a variety of illnesses, and it has several other
unpleasant aspects, such as foul odors and the degrading of all sorts of objects from stone carvings to
clothing. Coal burning causes many other environmental problems, such as destruction of land
surfaces by strip-mining, acid mine drainage, which pollutes our rivers and streams, land subsidence,
which damages and destroys buildings, and waste banks from washing coal, which are ugly and lead to
air pollution. Coal mining is a harsh and unpleasant occupation. Miners are frequently killed in
accidents, and constant exposure to coal dust causes severe degradation in their health, often leading to
premature death from an assortment of lung diseases. Oil has its environmental problems too. It
contributes substantially to air pollution and to acid rain. Oil spills in our oceans have fouled beaches
and caused severe damage to aquatic life. Oil causes fires, odors, and water pollution. The use of
natural gas can lead to fires and explosions and can kill people through asphyxiation. All of the
adverse health and environmental effects resulting from burning coal, oil, or natural gas to produce
electricity can be avoided by the use of nuclear power.
DOE’s inability to dispose of spent fuel is detrimental to the U.S. non-proliferation policy.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for
management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of
the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation
with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel
and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse
implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the
ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The
ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear
technologies.
Only doing Dry cask storage will cost the government billions of dollars in lawsuits
Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk
Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other permanent
deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982 Act pursuant
to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour and
the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for transport to permanent storage
beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits
against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342 million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability
projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if
that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected. Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential
temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving
forward "in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked,
contending that interim storage "is clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy
Act bars the DOE from taking title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a
license for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting
the application to license Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.
Nuclear Power Use Strengthens US-Australian Relations-- solving global poverty, living
standards, and economic growth
Ben Packham, 9-6-07, Herald Sun, PM feels heat as nuke deal struck, lexis, bc
JOHN Howard stepped up his claim for climate change credibility yesterday, announcing a joint
nuclear energy action plan with the US. But APEC business leaders demanded immediate action on global
warming. They called on their governments to put a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible, saying
action on climate change was ''urgently needed''. The Prime Minister said Australia and the US had agreed
to tackle climate change as a priority. ''This stems from our commitment to action on climate change
that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enable all countries to grow their economies,
reduce poverty, and improve living standards,'' Mr Howard said. Under the deal, the US will back
Australia's membership of a global partnership to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors.
Nuclear and clean coal technology will be shared directly with the US under the pact. US President
George Bush said the PM had been an international leader on climate change. ''Now, I know some say, 'Well,
since he's against Kyoto he doesn't care about climate change','' Mr Bush said. ''That's urban legend. That is
preposterous.''
Development of civilian nuclear technology key to us leadership and relations with Russia.
William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear
Leadership” (DS) Lexis
Over a half-century ago, at the dawn of the atomic age, President Eisenhower outlined in a speech before
the United Nations General Assembly, a plain but powerful vision for cooperation among the world’s
nuclear powers. In his “Atoms for Peace” address, he described a shared agenda which had essentially
three parts: harnessing the power of the atom for peaceful purposes; curbing the proliferation of
nuclear weapons; and urging responsible leadership from America and Russia in managing our own
nuclear arsenals. Eisenhower’s proposals led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency
and later to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but Cold War conflict eroded much of the
promise of his ideas. Fifty years later, the world is a much different place, and Russia and the United States
have a much different relationship. We have disagreements and mutual grievances, and obvious elements of
competition and rivalry in relations between us, but we are no longer enemies. We have had enough of Cold
Wars and disastrous arms races, and while we may not have a strategic partnership that produces a neat
coincidence of interest on every issue, we certainly can have a partnership on key strategic issues. Never has
there been a moment when the kinds of nuclear questions that Eisenhower foresaw have been more
important than they are today, and never has there been a moment when America and Russia, still
possessing nuclear capabilities and responsibilities that no other nations on earth can match, have had
a greater opportunity to demonstrate real leadership. It would be a huge mistake, not only for the two
of us but for the sake of global order, to miss that opportunity. That is exactly why President Bush and
President Putin, in Kennebunkport last July, placed such emphasis on realizing the full potential of US-
Russian nuclear cooperation. Their efforts are already creating a significant legacy, and much more is
possible in the months and years ahead. President Putin and President Bush have both recognized the
importance of rapidly developing civilian nuclear technology, and making its benefits available to the
developing world. For the first time in our history, we initialed a civilian nuclear cooperation
framework agreement, commonly known as a “123 Agreement” after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy
Act, which will help to normalize our commercial nuclear relationship and open up new avenues for
collaborative activities on civil nuclear energy, including possibilities for research on advanced reactors and
development of innovative recycling and fuel development technologies. If the first pillar in US-Russian
nuclear leadership, as Eisenhower foresaw 50 years ago, is the development of civilian nuclear power for
the benefit of the entire world, the second indispensable element is ensuring that that happens in a way
that does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For precisely that purpose, President
Putin and President Bush have made similar proposals in recent years to provide nuclear fuel services
to other nations under strict international supervision.
SDI 2008 33 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
ADV Competitiveness
Plan increases competitiveness in the economy and is overall more efficient and cheaper.
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine,
Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2
A global nuclear renaissance will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill engineering jobs to
operate the plants. Thus, two of the greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done
correctly, will be more jobs and cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not choose to produce
clean energy in a carbon constrained world will inevitably pay more to produce energy, resulting in
higher input costs and higher prices for consumers on the open market. As the economic
consequences of higher fossil-fuel costs spread to countries that do not produce nuclear power, many
countries will likely increase imports of nuclear electricity from foreign suppliers. While less
expensive and more reliable than other non-nuclear, non-emitting sources, this energy will surely cost
more to import than it would have had to produce it domestically. In the end, the countries that have
barred nuclear power from being produced in their respective countries will ultimately rely on
nuclear power, albeit at a more expensive imported price.
As Global Warming Pandemonium Increases, The U.S. Needs To Meet The Growing Demand By Using
Alternative Energy.
Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Staff Writers, The Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2008, FrontPage Magazine,
Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations, nna
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7048A616-ECFB-49E9-86FC-D2EF8F0226D2
With the U.S. entertaining the idea of building new nuclear plants, the country can learn a great deal from
other nations further along in the process. Electricity demand is skyrocketing in many parts of the world;
purported human-induced climate change has the entire globe in a panic. Nuclear energy has become a
focal point for countries trying to meet these needs, and some believe that it can provide an economic
boost at the same time. It creates opportunities to electrify portions of the economy that today rely
almost entirely on fossil-fuels, like transportation. Other countries seem to understand the potential
benefits of nuclear power and have either commenced constructing, or have developed projections for, new
nuclear plants. The time has come for the U.S. to stop squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and
allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to meet its growing energy demands.
Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy – it could create a million jobs.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008
Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.
Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental
benefits offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing
from the discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can
accrue if the U.S. recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States
greatly benefited from an initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the
early 1990s. At that time, U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use
of nuclear energy represents a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy
leadership. In the ever-expanding global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be
able to compete and supply nuclear energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred
supplier position. A nuclear energy revival is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper
we can not become complacent and view the growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.”
The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design,
manufacturing, service and supply improves, our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear
technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working
to promote a revived domestic nuclear design, manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:
o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;
o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and
o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.
Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than
one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of
the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close
attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers
and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be
needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater
education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging
our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs
that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.
SDI 2008 35 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
ADV Coal
Coal and global warming outweigh nuclear accidents
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
What's more, you can't look at safety in a vacuum. Consider the hazards of the world's reliance on coal-fired
plants: Coal mining world-wide results in several thousand deaths every year, most of them in China, and
burning coal is a leading source of mercury in the atmosphere. Furthermore, look at safety more broadly --
from an environmental perspective. The death and destruction stemming from global warming far exceed
what is likely to happen if there is a nuclear accident. And yet, when we talk about safety, we seem to focus only
on the risks of nuclear power. The long-term disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem -- but it's mainly a policy
issue, not a technical one.
ADV Hydrogen
Nuclear energy could create hydrogen for cars.
Physorg.com 9/23/05 “As Gasoline Prices Soar, Alternative Fuel Research Grows in Popularity”
Though it might seem futuristic, hydrogen is being touted as the world’s next petroleum – and ASU’s
Cody Friesen is helping to turn this theory into reality. Friesen, a new professor in the departments of
Chemical & Materials Engineering and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering within the Ira A. Fulton School
of Engineering, has received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program to fund
his research in understanding and developing nanoscale materials for hydrogen storage and fuel cells.
“There are three main technological roadblocks that must be overcome for any potential hydrogen economy
to come about,” Friesen says. “These are hydrogen production, hydrogen storage and hydrogen use.”
Hydrogen for automotive uses can be derived from a number of sources, including coal and nuclear
power.
SDI 2008 38 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
ADV Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan is on pace to become the world’s largest producer in Uranium
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP
Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable
electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal
of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered
little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell
directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is
making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access
to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and
Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia
leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by
Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less
than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a
2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall
amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher
the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings
mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up
to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of
uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently,
there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under
construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined
uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear
Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is
projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-
reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel
can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The
uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold
War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons
stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars
a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a
very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report
(PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only
supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade
uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the
need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in
the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium
market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry
that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays
in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only
starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate
them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there
are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under
construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium
market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a
shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India
obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than
half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say
Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia
has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country.
SDI 2008 39 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Inherency
Yucca Mountain Too Expensive With 21% Budget Shortfall—opening in 2017 will be
delayed.
Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law
change, lexis, bc
The Yucca Mountain Project is bogged down in uncertainty roughly 21 years after former President
Ronald Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the DOE repository
program, into law and nearly a decade after the department was supposed to begin disposing of utility spent
fuel. Under standard contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the DOE repository was to have
begun disposal operations by January 30, 1998. Instead, the department is wrestling with a 21% budget
shortfall that threatens to delay the program further. Meanwhile, the country's inventory of utility spent
fuel tops 56,000 metric tons and grows at a rate of roughly 2,000 mt a year, according to industry estimates.
Unless Congress lifts the current 70,000 mt cap on the disposal capacity of a Yucca Mountain repository, the
existing US fleet of power reactors will have generated enough spent fuel by 2010 to fill the facility, Sproat
said. Any spent fuel generated over the 70,000 mt limit would have to be disposed of in a second repository,
and many believe that efforts to site and build a second facility won't be easier. DOE and industry officials
have maintained that technically the Yucca Mountain site could accommodate at least twice the amount of
spent fuel permitted under the existing cap. DOE's ability to submit a repository license application by
the department's self-imposed June deadline will remain up in the air until senior managers report in six
to eight weeks on the impact of its fiscal 2008 budget cut, according to Sproat. But he reiterated he is
"cautiously optimistic" an application can be sent to NRC sometime this calendar year (NW, 17 Jan., 3).
Sproat also told industry officials that the department won't meet its previous goal of having a repository
ready to operate in 2017, which the department has described as the "best achievable" date for
repository operations. That date, which many program observers called overly optimistic, could be met only
if the program received adequate funding, wasn't delayed by lawsuits, and was licensed by NRC in three
years. Meanwhile, there are quiet informal discussions under way at DOE, which Sproat described as
hallway talk, about what kind of changes should be made to the program to help ensure its success. Options
aren't limited to shifting the program to a government corporation, he said.
Nuclear Power won’t receive necessary government support – it needs a lot more incentives
to truly revive the industry.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest)
"That's just the economic side of it," Moore says. "It's for these kinds of reasons, plus questions of safety,
that Wall Street really doesn't support this industry. The only way they can go is if they get continued
government subsidies. I don't think the subsidies are going to come in at the levels I've just referred
to." Last year, Congress funneled $18.5 billion into the nuclear-power industry in the form of
government subsidies, including research subsidies, loan guarantees, tax credits and construction
subsidies. More subsidies are expected to make it out of Congress this year as part of the congressional
effort to address global warming. "That's a lot of money, but it's a drop in the bucket to what it would
take to have a 'nuclear renaissance' in the United States," Moore says.
SDI 2008 41 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
In the status quo U.S. nuclear industry will be completely dead by 2056.
Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis
The long lead time for, and large uncertainties in, nuclear reactor construction and licensing have
stymied growth in the industry in the United States. American utilities have not ordered a nuclear
reactor since 1978, and that order was subsequently canceled. The last completed reactor in the United
States was the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar 1, which was ordered in 1970 and began operation in
1996. Despite the lack of reactor orders, the contribution of nuclear-generated electricity has increased in
recent years in the United States. During the past decade, average operating costs have decreased, and time
needed for refueling outages has shortened, allowing nuclear power plants to operate longer at full capacity
or, in industry terms, “increasing the load factor.” (The load factor in the United States increased from 65 3
Energy Information Agency, “Country Analysis Brief: United States, Electricity,” November 2005.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Electricity.html. 7 percent in the 1980s to 90 percent by 2002.)
Moreover, several nuclear plants have received licenses to increase their power ratings, again permitting
production of more electricity. While the industry has yet to order any new domestic reactors, changes in
U.S. law have helped renew interest among several companies in applying for reactor licenses. The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 began a reform of the licensing process to allow combining construction and operating
licenses in one application. In principle, a combined license should help streamline the application process.
Yet, large uncertainties in construction costs continue to impede investors. To try to jump-start the
nuclear industry, which was already receiving more subsidies than any other no- and low-carbon
energy sources, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided billions of additional dollars’ worth of
incentives to nuclear and smaller amounts of incentives to other no- and lowcarbon energy sources. (See
the Appendix for an analysis of this act.) Nonetheless, the process of new nuclear reactor licensing and
construction is estimated to take ten to fifteen years. Even if their license applications are approved,
the utilities have still not committed to building the reactors. In the coming decades, the U.S. nuclear
industry will have to run faster on the treadmill of impending nuclear power plant retirements to
replace the aging fleet of reactors. Initially, commercial reactors received forty-year licenses. While a
number of reactors never reached their forty-year nominal life spans before being decommissioned, much of
the current fleet of reactors has, in recent years, received twenty-year license renewals. As of the end of
2006, more than forty reactors have obtained twenty-year license extensions and about a dozen more have
applied for renewal. Figure 1 shows that even assuming all 103 currently operating reactors receive
twenty-year license renewals and no new reactors are constructed, the U.S. fleet will cease operations by
2056.
SDI 2008 42 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
South Carolina closed the nation’s only waste storage facility to 47 states
Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”,
Proquest, AB Tribunes Business News, 8 Jul 2008, Tribune Business News, “Waste shipments limited”,
Proquest, AB
Jul. 8--July 1 was a red-letter day for South Carolina. On that day, the nuclear waste disposal facility in
Barnwell County quit accepting waste from across the country. The Barnwell waste site was the only
one of its kind in the nation. It has been accepting low-level radioactive waste from across the nation
for nearly four decades, and the battle to end South Carolina's status as the national nuclear waste
dump has been long and hard fought. As of July 1, the first day of the state's fiscal year, use of the
facility was restricted to South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. Under a deal struck in 2000,
these states comprise the Atlantic Compact that excludes waste shipments from any other state.
SDI 2008 43 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public about waste disposal.
PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at
the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste, nna
The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been
impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these
perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the
discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and
the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward
creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent
repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for
difficult social and political issues to be resolved.
Dry cask systems will minimize the damage caused by any successful terrorist attack on a
storage facility
Lyman and Von Hippel ‘8, staff writers, Arms Control Today, April 2008 edition, Lexis, tk
In comparison, dry-cask storage of spent fuel, which is being used at U.S. nuclear power plants to handle the
overflow from spent fuel storage pools that have reached capacity, is benign. Ninety-five percent of all U.S.
spent fuel is at nuclear power plants that will operate for decades longer. At such sites, the added risk from
the spent fuel is small in comparison to that from the fuel in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools. If
cooling water is lost to a reactor core, it will begin releasing vaporized fission products within minutes. If
cooling water is lost from a spent fuel pond, recently discharged fuel would heat up to ignition temperature
with hours. In contrast, the heat from several-year-old spent fuel in dry casks is carried away passively by the
convection of the surrounding air. Also, because each dry cask contains only a small fraction of the
radioactive material contained in a reactor core or spent fuel pool, even a successful terrorist attack on a dry
cask would have a relatively limited impact.
SDI 2008 45 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Dry cask storage will buy time for new disposal measures
Bunn et al. ‘1, researchers from the Harvard University Project on Managing the Atom and the Tokyo
University Project of Sociotechnics on Nuclear Energy, “Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel”,
http://lyman.q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~todoriki/BCSIA.pdf
tk
The diverse technologies now available for storing spent nuclear fuel—from wet pools to dry casks—offer
safe, secure, and cost-effective options for storing the spent fuel generated by the world’s power reactors for
decades, or for much shorter periods of time, as circumstances warrant. These interim storage possibilities
will allow time for permanent options for management and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to be
prepared and implemented with the care they require. Interim storage of spent fuel can also allow time for
spent fuel management technology to improve, and for the economic, environmental, and security advantages
of different approaches to permanent management of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to become clearer.
As well it cites the remarkable performance of nuclear power in the United States in 2007. In that year,
America's 104 nuclear power stations established a high average capacity factor of 91.8 per cent and
produced a massive 807 billion kilowatt hours of energy at a record low cost of 1.68c per kilowatt hour. Some
10 years after Kyoto, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has published its Cool Earth 50
program. It is a detailed road map of energy related technologies that will halve the level of global greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has prioritised advanced nuclear power for this
project.
High costs of nuclear power are less than the costs of carbon emissions
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of
"cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the
environment. Add those costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain.
The imminent imposed cost of carbon emissions will make nuclear look viable
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases, through
either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which
would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell
or trade credits to companies whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-
produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in
particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50
a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor
concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants.
SDI 2008 49 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
There is more uranium than any other resource – if we don’t switch now our economy will
inevitably collapse.
Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no
power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP
After coal, the other natural resource we still have a lot of is uranium. Yet we get only 19% of our
power from nukes. The French are way ahead of us at 78.1%. Even the Bulgarians, at 43.6%, are
smirking at us. If oil suddenly gets more expensive, they'll make some sacrifices and squeeze by, while
our cheap-oil-driven economy collapses like a house of cards.
SDI 2008 51 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DOE Solves your impact, if prices become too high, they will open their stockpile.
NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, March 2008
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/uraniumfuelsupplyadequatepage4
In addition to traditional uranium deposits, the U.S. Department of Energy has a stockpile of uranium
that it could release to the market if needed. This is one of the “secondary sources” of uranium, which also
include excess commercial inventories, the expected delivery of low-enriched uranium from U.S. and
Russian warheads, re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails (byproducts from enrichment operations), and
possible reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. Uranium also is available from non-conventional sources, such as
the recovery of uranium byproduct from other metal mining (e.g., from copper mining in Utah), phosphate
fertilizer mining (e.g., Florida, Morocco and Brazil) or gold mining (e.g., South Africa, where millions of tons of
gold mining tailings are being processed for their uranium contents). As an example of the potential value of
these sources, worldwide phosphate deposits contain about 22 million tons of uranium.
1. Our plan creates a permanent repository for nuclear waste disposal, not just Yucca,
which means we solve this problem.
3. Reprocessing would reduce the amount of waste so Yucca would have plenty of room.
University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?”
http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk
Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is
reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. Ahearn says
reprocessing could reduce the needed volume of the repository by 30 percent, which "would go a long way
toward resolving the issue of whether there is enough space in Yucca Mountain."
SDI 2008 53 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT T Generic
It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing
nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to
debate it.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-
4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM
“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change
must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on
policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as
other nations have done,” he continued.
Nuclear power is the only way for the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions.
AEI (American Enterprise Institute) October 6, 2006
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1394,filter.economic/transcript.asp KP
What are some of the pieces that she would need to help you solve this problem? If you try to think about it,
all at once you probably cannot think of anything that is going to get you the whole way there, and even as
you will see, when you divide it into seven pieces it is pretty daunting. One example of a wedge - this is just
1/7 of what we have to do - would be two billion cars going at 60 miles per gallon instead of 30 miles per
gallon. So you can imagine it, but it is not easy.
And another wedge that is commonly mentioned that he has talked about, but, of course, Vice-President Gore
apparently does not talk about is you need about 700 gigawatts a nuclear power; that would be
about a wedge which is about twice current global capacity. So our view is that we do look at
nuclear power as one of the potential wedges, particularly for a couple of reasons. One is it is one of those
things we have already done. We have nuclear power. We know that we can do it. And also it is a really
important potentially GHT-free source of base load power, so that is something that we
think is important.
We did a report about a year-and-a-half ago by Granger Morgan and some of his colleagues at Carnegie
Mellon University, and they looked at what would it take over the next 50 years to
radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from United States electricity sector. They
found a very important role for energy efficiency and renewables. Our organization is very supportive of
moving ahead on that front. But they found they could not figure out, when they did the modeling and
tried to play around with different costs and different rates of technology penetration, they really could
not see how we could get big reductions at least over the next 50 years. If you go out a hundred years
sometimes people think it looks a little easy. You can see energy efficiency and renewables ramping up
fast enough to get you deeper reductions over a very long term, even beyond 50 years, but over the next
50 years it really looked like you needed either nuclear power or coal burning, but with carbon-captured
storage or coal use because it might be coal gasification with carbon capture and storage as one of those
needed to work to meet the base-load needs [indiscernible] in a low-carbon way in order to really get the
deep reductions over 50 years.
SDI 2008 54 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996).
What is important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active
nature. In the former case, we can think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence
decision-making about farming practices, whether intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, being
remote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices, would fit
into this category. In contrast, the notion of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually design or modify
policies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to this
concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any inducement which is specifically intended to incite or
motivate governments, local people, and international organizations” (p.38-39). We draw this distinction because of
the need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. While
governments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at improving NRM, they need to be
cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive structure, in the passive sense.
1.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives, disincentives and perverse incentives. In
contrast to incentives, which we have described above, disincentives are purposely designed to discourage
particular behaviours and can include taxes, fines and various other penalties or moral suasion. For purposes of this
study, we will not consider disincentives as distinct from incentives per se, but it is useful to be aware of the
distinction. In contrast, perverse incentives incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in a
socially inefficient manner and are closely related to the concept of policy failure, which is discussed in Chapter 2.
3. we meet the counter interpretation – industry wants waste storage before doing nuclear
power.
4. we meet both their interpretation and ours – that’s the 1AC evidence from Hipple ’08. It
says that the government has already given the industry a variety of incentives but the one
they have to have is a way to dispose of waste.
SDI 2008 56 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma last week introduced nuclear waste legislation aimed at fast-
tracking DOE's beleaguered repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and at making DOE's obligation
to dispose of utility spent fuel the basis for an NRC declaration of waste confidence. Five other Republican
senators co-sponsored the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2008 that Inhofe introduced January 24.
Inhofe, who has supported nuclear power as a vital component of the country's energy mix, last week
expressed concern that continuing delays in opening a repository at Yucca Mountain would "hinder the
resurgence of nuclear energy in the US." Speaking on the Senate floor, Inhofe noted that the location of
the country's sole repository site was decided in 2002 when President George W. Bush recommended that
Yucca Mountain be developed as a high-level waste repository and Congress adopted that recommendation.
The nuclear industry can not expand without waste storage, hence the provision of new
storage is a direct incentive for growth
William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear
Leadership” (DS) Lexis
More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands
of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production
expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal
will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options,
no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry
officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these
repositories.
Current Storage legislation, represses the still safe potential of current long term storage
facilities and in turn the Growth of the nuclear industry
Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis
More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands
of tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production
expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal
will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal
options, no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories.
Industry officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these
repositories.
Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental
Security
Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear
dump; State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain,
lexis, bc
The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store
70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount
of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear
power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors.
The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is
absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday.
SDI 2008 57 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT T substantially
elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political
implications, rather than on their merits. It is time to put it behind us.
SDI 2008 64 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear power expanding now – Australia, Canada, China, France, Russia and the UK.
James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619
International Momentum Growing Nuclear power is favored by leaders of such otherwise disparate
nations as Australia, Canada, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. "Economically, nuclear
power has a lot going for it," explained a May 22 house editorial in the Australian. "Though reactors
are pricey to build, once up and running, the fuel costs in OECD nuclear power plants run to about
one-third of those in coal-fired plants and a quarter of those in natural gas plants. "Furthermore," the
editorial continued, "taking the Chernobyl disaster--the result of Soviet-era construction and
mismanagement--out of the equation, nuclear power is comparatively safe. France, which 30 years ago took
80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, now generates approximately that same percentage from
uranium, and has not suffered a significant accident." "At the beginning of the century, China and India's
economies began taking off, and you need energy to accomplish this," Heymer observed. "China has
recently begun looking into nuclear power, for economic and environmental reasons. In China alone,
they are going to build a substantial number--at least 40--nuclear power plants in the next 25 years.
One million tons of CO2 emissions will be avoided if these are operating. That is a significant benefit to
the environment." U.S. Outlook Bright The international popularity of nuclear power is not being lost on
U.S. legislators. Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," observed Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) at
a May 22 meeting with citizens in Manchester, New Hampshire.
“Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. Most importantly, its available right now. Many countries
around the world have already realized this, which is why nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and
Asia. The good news is that thanks to the Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, it is beginning to flourish
here as well and we now have more than 30 nuclear power plants on the drawing board in the United
States,” Domenici said. The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production tax
credits, and insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the
Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost
sharing effort to identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced
nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. If all the proposed nuclear
power plants come online, an additional 38,000 megawatts of electricity will be generated by 2020—enough
to power 28 million American households.
Non-U: subsidies to nuclear energies already in place and more expensive then plan
Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis
To try to jump-start the nuclear industry, which was already receiving more subsidies than any other
no- and low-carbon energy sources, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided billions of additional
dollars’ worth of incentives to nuclear and smaller amounts of incentives to other no- and lowcarbon
energy sources. (See the Appendix for an analysis of this act.) Nonetheless, the process of new nuclear
reactor licensing and construction is estimated to take ten to fifteen years. Even if their license applications
are approved, the utilities have still not committed to building the reactors. In the coming decades, the U.S.
nuclear industry will have to run faster on the treadmill of impending nuclear power plant retirements to
replace the aging fleet of reactors. Initially, commercial reactors received forty-year licenses. While a number
of reactors never reached their forty-year nominal life spans before being decommissioned, much of the
current fleet of reactors has, in recent years, received twenty-year license renewals. As of the end of 2006,
more than forty reactors have obtained twenty-year license extensions and about a dozen more have applied
for renewal. Figure 1 shows that even assuming all 103 currently operating reactors receive twenty-year
license renewals and no new reactors are constructed, the U.S. fleet will cease operations by 2056.
SDI 2008 67 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Dry Casks
Non-unique some companies already using dry cask storage.
Nuclear Fuel Magazine ‘8, 6/2, Nuclear Fuel Magazine, “Jaczko expands dry storage idea”
Lexis. tk
NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko's recent suggestion that NRC consider a rule change to encourage
utilities to move spent fuel into dry storage faster was intended to "begin discussion on that issue," but
a number of things would need to be worked out before a rulemaking would go forward, Jaczko said in a
May 22 interview. Jaczko made the proposal May 13 at the Nuclear Energy Institute's annual Dry Storage
Information Forum in Bonita Springs, Florida (Nucleonics Week, 22 May, 11). Noting the recent expansion
and success of dry storage, Jaczko suggested in his speech that NRC's well-established licensing
methodology presents the agency with "a real policy issue" on whether to encourage utilities to move more
fuel currently stored in pools into dry casks. Speaking with Platts on a variety of subjects, Jaczko said the
Florida speech was just the beginning of a dialogue he hoped to initiate with his fellow commissioners, the
public, and other stakeholders about the merits of encouraging utilities to move fuel into storage casks after
an initial cooling period in the pool. Jaczko pointed to the very low risk, about 10 -12 chance of latent
cancer fatalities, in arguing that dry casks are, from a safety standpoint, "really the optimal way to
store spent fuel." He acknowledged that many licensees have already turned to dry storage and said it
would take some time to work through and "really understand what the ramifications would be and how we
would go about doing" a rulemaking. The timeframe and conditions for transitioning from pool to dry storage
would need to be addressed as part of the rule development process, he said. "For me, right now the most
important thing is just having the discussion about whether we should move to some kind of rulemaking in
this area to make this a uniform practice throughout the industry."
Anti-Nukers have been “crying wolf” over the safety concerns regarding nuclear plants for
over 45 years while history proves it is safe.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation, February 1, 2008, The Heritage
Foundation, Nuclear Safety Paranoia, nna
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/020108a.cfm
On January 4, The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power
plant. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. Scary stuff, eh? Until
you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier. Even when new, the
story wasn't exactly front-page material. The plant was never in jeopardy, nor was anyone endangered. The
media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism, at best, and bias against nuclear power at worst.
At the very least, such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power. Let's be clear. Some
guards were sleeping on the job. They should not have been sleeping. When the company that runs the
plant found out, it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. In short: A problem arose; it was
identified, and it was solved. That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn't. In the months since
the sleeping-guards story first aired, numerous articles have been printed -- and not just by The Post. USA
Today ran the story in September, editorialized on it in October, and revisited it again in December. Each
article included independent, third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. The
problem is that the analysis always comes from the same anti-nuke crowd that's been "crying wolf"
about nuclear power since the 1960s. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well, with rising
energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power is enjoying a
comeback. Awkwardly, for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the
auspices of environmentalism, the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear
energy. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for
nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric. One of the least expensive forms of energy production,
nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. The worst commercial
nuclear accident in U.S. history, the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, caused no fatalities or
casualties. Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China
Syndrome" fears, three decades of anti-nuclear propaganda have left their mark. Many Americans remain
concerned about nuclear safety, and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play
upon that anxiety. Increasingly, the anti-nukers preach acceptance -- but with a catch. Their
conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. What seems reasonable, however, quickly becomes
ridiculous. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns, misstating the information used to
support their positions, and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their
conditions. This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda.
Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. The
result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. Some recent examples include
incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. At the Davis-Besse
plant, safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. An inch of steel cladding prevented the
hole from opening. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined
that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident, and that the steel cladding could
have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations, the incident was portrayed as a safety
failure. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-
Besse incident. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse, but no radiation was released.
Nonetheless, activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. Safety should remain a
priority at nuclear power plants, but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda
helps no one. The unfortunate thing is that there are great, newsworthy stories to be written about
nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S.; terrorists
have never attacked a nuclear power plant; nuclear power is clean, affordable and emits nothing into
the atmosphere. The list goes on. A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not
fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. For a news story, it's pretty thin gruel. Yet that's what leading
media are feeding the public. Repeatedly.
SDI 2008 70 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA proliferation
1. Cross apply our nuclear power leadership advantage – if the U.S. revives it’s nuclear energy they will be able to
decrease proliferation.
People would probably still ask, however, what is the risk of companies operating civil nuclear power
enrichment plants or the countries in which they operate (such as Britain and the U.S.) allowing the plants to
produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Bearing in mind the high probability of detection of
such crude breaches of their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and the impact of that on their prestige,
credibility and influence, the prospects of companies or countries doing that are very small.
Volcanoes and earthquakes are a virtual zero risk scenario – there haven’t been any near
Yucca for millions of years.
Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
There are other matters to consider, including the potential effects of climate change, volcanoes, and
earthquakes. All of these now seem to be of minimal concern. The closest major earthquake was 90
miles to the west in 1872, and there has been no major faulting or folding of rocks for over 10 million
years. The climate has been arid for over 2 million years, and there have been no volcanoes for several
million years. But investigating these matters is an important part of the research program.
Your impact is massively overstated In the rare case of an atomic bomb or nuclear failure,
there will be very few mutations or cancers; any health risks will be preventable.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
The idea that radiation from atomic bombs has caused a substantial increase of genetic mutation has
no scientific support. There is no evidence of increased mutation, genetic diseases, or cancer in animals
or humans following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. This is true even around Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs ended the war with Japan. Likewise, there is no scientific evidence
the population near Chernobyl experienced an increase in overall cancer incidence, mortality, or
nonmalignant disorders related to radiation exposure following the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
failure. The worst large-scale consequence from Chernobyl has been thyroid cancer in Ukrainian and
Belarusian children. Readily available potassium iodide tablets would have protected the children by
preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine 131, but Moscow unnecessarily delayed allowing distribution of
the tablets. Even so, 95 percent of the affected children recovered completely. Chernobyl was a failure not
of nuclear power but of the Soviet political system. The predicted increase in cancer from Chernobyl
would probably be too small to notice but for the extra scrutiny the Chernobyl area receives. Cleaner
than Coal The annual solid residues of coal combustion come to 890 pounds per American. Cravens
calculates that if an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person's
mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons. A coal-fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear
plant. The corresponding amount of waste from a lifetime of nuclear power, by contrast, would weigh two
pounds and fit into a soda can. And of that amount, only a trace is long-lived. The many experts Cravens
consulted were adamant in pointing out terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American
nuclear plant nor make an atomic bomb from its fuel. Regarding future nuclear power plants, some
estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined design, with many more built-in, passive safety
features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other components, could be built in five years, as is
already being accomplished in France. The price per plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear
power much less expensive than solar or wind power.
SDI 2008 73 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
No link – the plan creates the opportunity to reopen discussions about where waste should
be stored.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly
in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca
Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To overcome this perception, it may
be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be
difficult. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to
Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in
dealing with radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to establishing a more
specialized and less politicized agency for this purpose.
Even if the Yucca Mountain were to close after usage, the public would still be safe.
The Department Of Energy. June 2008. The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/license/docs/Safety_of_a_repository.pdf, AP
The safety of the repository at Yucca Mountain after permanent closure (postclosure) is ensured by the
use of two safety principles. First, the engineered barrier system is designed so that, working in
combination with the natural features of the site, potential, very distant future radiological doses to a
reasonably maximally exposed individual described in the regulation are expected to be well below the limits
specified by the NRC. In other words, the engineered components must be designed to take advantage of
the characteristics of the natural features of the Yucca Mountain site. The second safety principle is
that the geologic repository includes multiple barriers, consisting of both natural barriers and an
engineered barrier system. Geologic disposal of radioactive waste is predicated on the expectation that one or
more features of the geologic setting will be capable of contributing to the isolation of radioactive waste,
meaning it acts as a barrier to the movement of radionuclides out of the repository. While there is an
extensive geologic record ranging from thousands to millions of years, this record includes many
uncertainties. In addition, there are uncertainties in the isolation capability and performance of engineered
barriers over very long timeframes. These two types of uncertainties are addressed by requiring that multiple
barriers make up the repository system to ensure that repository performance is not wholly dependent on a
single barrier. As a result, the system is more tolerant of failures and external challenges, such as
earthquakes.
SDI 2008 80 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear plants have the security to withstand earthquakes without harm, they are perfectly
safe
John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., 10/1/07 “Nuclear Power Plant Withstands Major Earthquake” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21986&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
In a real-world test of nuclear power plant safety, the world's largest nuclear power plant, at
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Japan, took the brunt of a major earthquake on July 16, 2007 and passed the
test admirably. Little Damage Suffered Despite a magnitude 6.8 earthquake striking the nuclear power
plant, the August 7 Daily Yomiuri reported, some "unnecessary fuss over the leak of a small amount of
radioactive material" failed to undermine the positive significance of the event, because the release amounted
to less than one-10 millionth of the dose of annual radiation an ordinary person is exposed to from the natural
environment. "Although the plant suffered damage, including a small fire at a power transformer, the
safety of the plant's nuclear reactors was never jeopardized," the Daily Yomiuri observed. No Special
Precautions Taken Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to meet the anti-seismic guidelines set up by
the nation's Nuclear Safety Commission. The potential radiation exposure from the small amount of leakage
in the earthquake was essentially meaningless, as the Daily Yomiuri noted. A single chest x-ray with all
normal safety precautions entails far more radiation exposure than the radiation effects from the
earthquake's damage to the power plant. Nuclear safety analysts were further encouraged because the
nuclear plant did not have any special earthquake-resistant design technology, yet performed so well in
the crosshairs of a major quake. Even though the facility was built on a major fault line, the integrity
of the plant was never jeopardized. The London Times sent an obviously concerned reporter to the
scene with a gamma counter to measure radiation. The reporter, Leo Lewis, reported his gamma
counter measured no unusual radioactivity after the quake. As a result, Lewis was left to report about
the tremendous damage to various structures around the earthquake epicenter, and to wonder how the nuclear
power plant endured so safely. Nuclear Safety Confirmed The answer, experts note, is that a nuclear plant
core is in a very strong confinement area cooled by water. Radioactive material is embedded in metal
rods that are in a core surrounded by protection and insulation. Even with no special earthquake
precautions taken, the containment facility is remarkably strong. "It is indeed remarkable that the
combination of human fallibility and mechanical failure over the last 40 years has resulted in a nuclear
safety record unsurpassed by any other industrial activity," said Jay Lehr, science director for The
Heartland Institute. "Commercial nuclear electricity in the United States has killed zero members of
the public over that period. Conventional electric power plants powered by coal, oil, and natural gas
produce more than 200 accidental deaths per year," Lehr continued. "The worst built and maintained
nuclear plant in history, at Chernobyl, which could never have passed muster in the West, provides the
worst-case scenario of fewer than 100 deaths from nuclear radiation. Three Mile Island in the United
States, ballyhooed as a plant failure, was in fact a safety success, as automated shutoff systems resulted
in neither sickness nor death," Lehr added.
Nuclear energy tries to clean up pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions combined with
new technology may make nuclear a greener option
Financial Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC,
For the past 20 years, they have been seen as dangerous and uneconomic. Moreover, countries have been unsure
about how to dispose of the dangerous radioactive waste they produce. But supporters of nuclear power say that
advances in technology have enabled the construction of a new generation of nuclear plants that are cheaper,
safer and produce less waste than their predecessors. A key change, they argue, is that modern reactors are
designed to shut down in the absence of constant intervention. At the same time, within a few years China hopes
to be self-sufficient in reactor design and construction. It plans to build a next-generation "pebble-bed" reactor,
which uses helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. Proponents say this new technology is far safer and
cheaper than existing designs; detractors argue it produces more dangerous radioactive waste. Still, some leaders of
the green movement now believe that the risks posed by climate change outweigh those posed by radioactive
waste. From an environmental perspective, one of the most intractable problems faced by the nuclear industry
is what to do with the radioactive waste from existing facilities, some of which will remain dangerous for
centuries.
A half century of nuclear development has left a considerable legacy. It is estimated that world
accumulation of spent fuel will reach 341,095 tons by 2010; Asia's share is 50,610 tons. That is enough
material to cover a road 10 meters wide and 300 km long to a depth of one meter. That mountain of
radioactive waste will accumulate even if no additional nuclear capacity is installed in Northeast Asia; it
is the product of plants already under construction or which were well in to the planning stage. Were that not
sobering enough, there is the fact that that waste will contain 450 tons of plutonium. Dealing with that
waste is, argues Ron Smith, director of defense and strategic studies at the University of Waikato, New
Zealand and who has been studying the back-end problem for several years, "the Achilles heel of the nuclear
question."
Turn – nuclear power generates less hazardous waste than other power sources and they
monitor it to ensure safety.
James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619
Others Switching Sides Bourne joins a substantial number of environmental activists who have indicated
support for nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Patrick Moore, one of the founders
of Greenpeace; James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Earth theory; and Hugh Montefiore, former chairman
and trustee for Friends of the Earth, are just a few of the high-profile environmental activists who have
recently switched sides on the nuclear issue. "Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases or
nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide," explained Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment
at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "This, of course, gives nuclear a tremendous environmental advantage
over other economically competitive power sources. "Compared with a lot of other industries,"
Heymer added, "we don't generate as much hazardous waste. Plus, we monitor it--we know where it is,
and we make sure that people and the environment are adequately protected from it."
AT DA Radiation
Background radiation inoculates against cancer and other diseases, is not harmful
Jay Lehr, Ph.D, science director of the Heartland Institute, 4/1/07, “Radiation Myths Harming Public Health” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20823&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619 ellipses in original
Let us first examine the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) theory, by which we have been held hostage for so long.
To take it to an absurd extreme so you will easily understand it, the theory basically says that if 100 percent
of a given population will die from a fall from a 100 foot cliff, and 50 percent would die when falling from a
height of 50 feet, then we can expect that one person of a hundred would die when falling from a height of
one foot. Silly as this seems, we use the same theory when studying the effects of chemicals and heavy metal
intake by humans. Substances such as mercury, lead, tin, cadmium, oxygen, fluorine, arsenic, and
selenium are toxic in large quantities, yet critical to our health in small quantities. We call the
phenomenon of harm at high doses and help at low doses "hormesis," derived from the Greek word
"hormo," which means to excite. Thus, a substance that excites a positive bodily response at a low dose
and is harmful at high doses is considered hormetic. Vitamins and trace minerals clearly show the
difference a dose makes. The same is true of sunlight, noise, and stress. Radiation Fears Unwarranted A
common measure of nuclear radiation is the millirem, or mrem. The average background radiation in the
United States is 300 mrem per year, though higher at altitudes well above sea level, such as Denver. Low-
level radiation is a "green issue." The media tends not to criticize their green friends who oppose any
and all forms of radiation. Indeed, if low levels of radiation are realized to be benign, then there goes a
central argument of anti-nuclear activists. There is in fact no scientifically credible evidence that low-
level radiation is harmful, yet there is substantial evidence that it actually inoculates the body to resist
the negative effects of future high doses. At the same time, low-dose radiation appears to have positive
effects in increasing immune system competency. Hiserodt informs us that if we want to avoid our
natural annual background radiation, we would have to move to Antarctica or live underwater in a
nuclear submarine. We could also encourage people to move from the high plains of Colorado--where
the cancer rates are low--to states where background radiation is low ... but cancer rates are higher.
But of course we are not going to do any of these things, because if an increase in low-level radiation caused
any problems at all we would have seen the evidence long ago, in the form of dead bodies. If low-level
radiation harmed human health, Deadwood, Colorado (elevation 11,000 feet) would be well known for its
citizens' short life spans, but that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. According to Hiserodt, the only
people who think there is any real danger from low-level radiation are the regulators, antinuclear
activists, environmental zealots, and government scientists who cling to the Linear No-Threshold
hypothesis.
Some radiation is very healthy: Studies prove that government restrictions on nuclear
power are wasteful
Jay Lehr, Ph.D, science director of the Heartland Institute, 4/1/07, “Radiation Myths Harming Public Health” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20823&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619
The greatest proof, worth repeating, lies among the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima--who were
exposed to low-level radiation and went on to experience longer and healthier life spans than Japanese
living elsewhere. Study after study of nuclear power plant workers further illustrate the enhanced
health of those working in an environment of low-level radiation. The most inclusive study, which was
intended to show negative impacts on our nuclear workforce, began at Johns Hopkins University in
1980 and was reported 15 years ago. It conclusively showed positive effects of low-level radiation on
72,356 workers. Perhaps the most telling real-world evidence of the benefits of low-level radiation is
how the uneven distribution of background radiation around the world parallels the variations in
human cancer rates. The higher the natural radiation background, the lower the local cancer rates.
Hiserodt briefly but clearly describes nuclear reactors, saying, "the new designs are even safer than the
old--but how do you get safer than no deaths, no injuries, and no negative effects to the public from
several thousand reactor years of operation with thousands of giga watt-hours of life-enhancing
electrical energy having been generated?" The question of whether tiny amounts of radiation must be
avoided, even at great cost, is neither abstract nor trivial. Hundreds of billions of dollars are targeted
to remediate U.S. sites even though there is no scientific basis for claiming any health or other benefit
from removing low-level radiation. Worldwide, Hiserodt tells us, the cost of such remediation has been
estimated at more than a trillion dollars.
SDI 2008 88 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Reprocessing
Non-unique - U.S. moving toward reprocessing now.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in
the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some can be
reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.K. for more than a decade, and
Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without precedent. But,
as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take.
Turn Dry casks can easily be stored removing the need to reprocess.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of space for more casks at U.S. nuclear
power plants. Even the oldest operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20
years, and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites. So there is no reason to think that these
storage areas are about to disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel
and put it elsewhere, but there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only
make the situation much more dangerous and costly than it is today.
Recycling of nuclear waste is the safest form of disposal. France and Britain prove.
Miller, William H., professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri
and at the university's research reactor, June 29, 2008, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Swords to plowshares: nuclear
bombs to electricity, Lexis, VF
Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian nuclear
warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and reduced the need to open
new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more competitive economically and helped to ensure
its long-term viability. This raises an important question: If nuclear fuel can be produced safely from bomb-
grade uranium, why not make use of spent fuel being stored at nuclear plants throughout the United States?
The spent fuel - more than 55,000 metric tons of it - contains valuable uranium and plutonium that can be
reprocessed chemically to produce a mixed-oxide fuel for use in generating more electricity. Such recycling
was done in the United States until the mid-1970s, when President Jimmy Carter banned its use on grounds that the
process posed a risk of nuclear proliferation. France and Great Britain, however, have continued to recycle spent
fuel. France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and sells surplus electricity to
neighboring countries. Great Britain is gearing up to build more nuclear plants. The United States finally is
reawakening to the value of spent-fuel recycling. The U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership calls for the resumption of recycling in the United States by 2020. Research on improved
recycling technologies is under way.
Mox recyceling is very safe and chances of getting sick or injured from nucleur activity is
low. Enviormental News Service, ’05, First American MOX Nuclear Fuel Factory Will Emit
Radioactivityhttp://www.ensnewswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005020102.asp ASH
SRS employees working elsewhere on the site would be exposed to a fatal cancer risk of one chance in
33 million. Operation of the facilities is considered to have an insignificant impact on members of the
public - 1 chance in 500 million. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster has proposed to treat exhausts from
the proposed MOX facility with a two stage high efficiency filter system to remove radioactive
materials before the exhaust is discharged to the atmosphere.
SDI 2008 92 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Martin embraces solar and wind energy as alternative sources of energy, but is more enthusiastic about the potential
of new nuclear technology for large-scale electricity generation. Pebble-bed reactors are a product of so-called
"fourth generation" nuclear technology: pebble-bed reactors shut down automatically by virtue of their design if the
temperature gets too hot so there is no risk of a meltdown. Unlike the uranium used by today's nuclear power plants,
the uranium used by pebble-bed reactors is only 9% enriched, making it extremely difficult to divert for nuclear
weapon use , reducing proliferation. Unlike the waste produced by today's nuclear power plants, the waste of pebble
bed reactors (small balls with hard silicon-carbide shells) can be easily stored. Pebble-bed reactors are also
smaller and far more affordable than conventional reactors, making them useful for developing nations.
South Africa is set to export such reactors in just a few years, and China is set to build many of them in its
quest to reduce energy dependence.
SDI 2008 94 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Russian dependency
Non-unique - The US is dramatically increasing its energy reliance on Russia with this new deal
Novosti, Russian International News Agency, 02/ 02/ 2008 KP
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080202/98225772.html
Russia and the United States have signed a trade deal allowing Russia to boost enriched uranium
exports to the U.S., Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom said Saturday. Rosatom director Sergei
Kiriyenko made a one-day working visit to the United States on Friday, meeting in Washington with U.S.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. He also met with chief
executives of U.S. energy companies affiliated with Ad Hoc Utilities Group, an industrial group comprised of
owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power plants. "The deal is worth $5-6 billion over the next 10
years," said Kiriyenko, after signing the document together with Carlos Gutierrez. The deal allows for sales
of Russian enriched uranium directly to U.S. utilities. Previously, such direct transactions were not
permitted. Gutierrez said: "The agreement will encourage bilateral trade in Russian uranium products for
peaceful purposes. It will also help to ensure that U.S. utilities have an adequate source of enriched
uranium for U.S. utility consumers." A Rosatom spokesman said with the new trade deal the volumes
of direct deliveries of uranium enrichment services may total 20% of the market. Under the deal,
Russian uranium exports to the U.S. increase slowly over a 10-year period, beginning in 2011, when
shipments would be allowed to reach 16,559 tons. Last September, the United States Court of
International Trade lifted discriminatory, anti-dumping restrictions on Russian low-enriched uranium
(LEU) supplies, ordering, the U.S. Department of Commerce within 60 days to cancel a 112% duty on
Russian low-enriched uranium used by some 50% of U.S. nuclear power plants. Russia currently
exports uranium to the U.S. duty free via the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a special
intermediary agent, under a conversion program called HEU-LEU. The HEU-LEU contract, also known
as the Megatons to Megawatts agreement, was signed in February 1993 and expires in 2013. It aims to
convert 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium (HEU), the equivalent of approximately 20,000 nuclear
warheads, from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is then
converted into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors.
SDI 2008 95 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Economy
Nuclear Power Creates Huge Job Pool, Booming The Economy
Jenny Weil, 6-23-08, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Nuclear Construction could create thousands of
jobs, group says, lexis, bc
A nuclear revival in the US could create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs if the 30 reactors that are
currently on the drawing boards are actually built, according to a report released last week by a nuclear
energy advocacy group. The report, released Tuesday by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy,
said that each of the 30 reactor projects might create jobs for as many as 4,000 highly skilled construction
workers. Additionally, each new reactor might generate between 400 and 700 permanent positions, the report
said. Christine Todd Whitman, one of the group's two co-chairs, said the report shows that expanding nuclear
energy would be a boon for the US economy. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens
of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors," said Whitman, a
Republican who formerly served as the governor of New Jersey and the administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The figure for the peak construction period is much higher than the 2,400-worker estimate
previously cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. But neither CASEnergy nor NEI
specified whether the 4,000 or 2,400 jobs would be needed to build one or two nuclear generating units. NEI has
said that building a plant would create about an average of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs. CASEnergy, which was
established in 2006, is comprised of various companies, business and labor groups, and elected officials who
support nuclear power. Funding for much of the coalition's early activities was provided by NEI. High salaries
seen Overall, CASEnergy estimated that as many as 21,000 new jobs could be added to the market if the 30-plus
reactors are built. Moreover, the average salaries for plant workers are often "substantially more" than the pay
for other jobs in the community near the plant, the group said. Specifically, the report said that the median salary
for a senior reactor operator is $85,426, and that standard reactor operators earn about $77,782, on average.
Electrical technicians can earn about $67,517, and mechanical technicians are paid about $66,581, the report
said. The jobs range from engineers to radiation protection specialists to maintenance and skilled craft workers
and plant operators. Support staff would be needed in areas such as recordkeeping, general maintenance and
janitorial services, the report said. Another concern for the nuclear industry is replacing retiring workers. The
report estimated that about 35% of the current workforce will be eligible to retire within five years, providing an
opportunity for hiring about 19,600 workers. CASEnergy noted, for example, that 36% of plant operators are 48
years old or older, and 27% will be eligible to retire in the next five years. An additional 12% might leave for
other reasons, and 21% could be promoted to other jobs, the report said.
Nuclear Power Plants boost the US economy and creates more jobs
Bonyun ’08 (30 Jun, Sean C. Bonyun, HT Media Inc., “Rep. Upton – A Greater Commitment to Nuclear Will
Power Millions of Homes, US Economy”, AB, Proquest)
In addition to providing stable, emissions-free electricity, the economic benefits of nuclear power are
substantial. Each of today's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for
the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. Nuclear power today
accounts for 20 percent of our nation's energy supply (coal supplies are nearly 50 percent; natural gas, 20
percent; hydroelectric, 7 percent; and other renewables such as wind and solar account for just 2.4 percent).
While supplying just 20 percent of our electricity, nuclear power accounts for an extraordinary 70 percent of
our nation's emissions-free electricity. If we were to maintain the current ratio of electricity generation, to
meet future demand over the next 20 years, we will have to construct 747 new coal plants, 52 new nuclear
plants and 1,994 new hydro-electric plants. Currently, at least 30 new reactors are under consideration in the
United States. According to the Bechtel Power Corporation (outlined by the CASEnergy Coalition) if the
U.S. builds 33 to 41 new nuclear power plants, 610,000 high-paying jobs would be added to the U.S.
economy: * 72,000 to 79,000 plant construction and operations jobs * 37,000 to 38,000 nuclear
manufacturing jobs * 181,000 to 250,000 indirect nuclear power jobs * 218,000 to 242,000 jobs in non-
nuclear industries "Although we have not built a new nuclear plant in over three decades, it is imperative
that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront as we seek to solidify our nation's energy supply and foster a
new era of energy independence and reduced emissions," said Upton. "As applications for at least 30 new
nuclear plants are expected over the next three years, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to
nuclear power. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be bolstered.
Millions of households will be powered by zero-emission nuclear power and our nation's economy will be
powered by nuclear as well." As a consequence of not having constructed a new nuclear facility in over
30 years, an entire manufacturing sector has literally been shuttered. Through a renewed commitment
to nuclear power, and the construction of dozens of new plants on American soil, we will foster the
rebirth of the manufacturing industry and the creation of tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs.
SDI 2008 97 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Price Volitility
Nuclear Power is the only energy source that is non intermittent and not subject to price
fluctuations
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP
If Michael short-sightedly wants to oppose nuclear energy, he’s free to do so. But he shouldn’t do it with
bogus arguments about which technologies are ready for prime time and which aren’t. Nuclear energy is
our country’s only large-scale energy source capable of producing electricity around the clock while
emitting no air pollutants or greenhouse gases during production. Nuclear energy is also the lowest-
cost large-scale producer of electricity in this country. And nuclear’s production costs are stable and
not subject to fluctuations in the natural gas or oil market. As a domestic energy technology with fuel
from the United States and reliable trading partners, nuclear energy is essential to our nation’s energy
security.
SDI 2008 98 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Spending
Failure to create a federal repository means the government has to pay $300 million per
year for dry casks.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks,
each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel
to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S.
nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses
had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally
planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and
operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.
No link – DOE has been collecting money for a permanent repository since 1989.
Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is charged with the responsibility for managing the
waste, has faced this difficult situation by adopting the position that repository site selection is strictly
a scientific problem, requiring a tremendous research effort which it is more than happy to undertake.
The money for it is available from the 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour tax on nuclear electricity. Through
1989, $6 billion had already been collected. Managing a large research program is clearly advantageous to
the careers of those in charge, and it also delays the pain of making a decision. The longevity of individuals
in top government positions is such that they personally will probably never have to make a final decision —
for a government bureaucrat that is the ideal situation.
SDI 2008 99 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Terrorism
Turn – we take away a major source of revenue for terrorist organizations.
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
One final point about security: One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil nations providing
support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we can move away from carbon-based energy, the
faster we take away that funding source. Nuclear energy offers the fastest and most direct path to that
safer future.
Nuclear energy secure from previous methods of successful attack such as air planes
NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 02, 2008, “Protecting Against Aircraft”
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/index.html
Since 9/11, the issue of an airborne attack on this nation’s infrastructure, including both operating and
potential new nuclear power plants, has been widely discussed. The NRC has comprehensively studied the
effect of an airborne attack on nuclear power plants. Shortly after 9/11, the NRC began a security and
engineering review of operating nuclear power plants. Assisting the NRC were national experts from
Department of Energy laboratories, who used state-of-the-art experiments, and structural and fire
analyses. These classified studies confirm that there is a low likelihood that an airplane attack on a
nuclear power plant would affect public health and safety, thanks in part to the inherent robustness of the
structures. A second study identified new methods plants could use to minimize damage and risk to the
public in the event of any kind of large fire or explosion. Nuclear power plants subsequently
implemented many of these methods. The NRC is now considering new regulations for future reactors’
security. The goal is to include inherent safety and security features to minimize potential damage from an
airborne attack.
Unique turn – we spur a move to dry cask storage which solves the terrorism risk.
William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear
Leadership” (DS) Lexis
In considering alternative storage options, the study assessed, “Dry cask storage has inherent security
advantages over spent fuel storage, but it can only be used to store older spent fuel.”24 Removal of older
spent fuel would also relieve overcrowded conditions in many spent fuel pools, thus decreasing safety and
security risks of the remaining spent fuel in the pools. While some plants have begun using dry cask
storage on-site to relieve the storage burden on spent fuel pools, most plants have not. Hardened on-
site storage of dry spent fuel casks would reduce the risk of attack or sabotage. Spent fuel could be
moved to dry cask storage after cooling for five years in pools. Estimates are that dry cask storage can
safely and securely store spent fuel for up to one hundred years.
SDI 2008 101 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
NRC studies concluded dry storage is safe even if a terrorist attack is successful.
Elaine Hiruo, 7-16-08, Nuclear Fuel, Impact of terrorist attack on Yucca must be fully assessed, Loux says,
lexis, bc
NRC concluded in late May in a draft SEA on spent fuel dry storage at Diablo Canyon that security
requirements combined with design requirements for dry storage casks would provide adequate
protection against successful terrorist attacks on an Isfsi at a nuclear power plant (NF, 4 June, 14).
Agency staff said that the construction and operation of an Isfsi at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s Diablo
Canyon plant would not have a significant impact on the environment.
SDI 2008 102 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Layered defensive of nuclear Storage facilitiss and plants make them impregnable
NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 02, 2008, “Defending Category I Fuel-Cycle Facilities”
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/index.html
There are two NRC-licensed Category I Fuel-Cycle Facilities in the U.S. that make reactor fuel for nuclear
plants. Since these plants handle nuclear material that could be targeted by adversaries, they also must defend
against a DBT similar to that for nuclear power plants. While security of the nation’s nuclear power
plants has always been a top priority, the NRC has responded to today’s threat environment with
heightened scrutiny and increasingly stringent requirements. NRC-regulated nuclear facilities are, in fact,
considered among the most secure of the nation’s critical infrastructure. The key is layers of defense.
As a first layer, nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures, built to withstand hurricanes,
tornadoes and earthquakes. Additional security measures as previously explained are then layered on top.
A final layer of protection is NRC’s close coordination with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense and local law enforcement. This coordination
is focused on building an integrated federal, state and local response to protect the public. The NRC
Operations Center, at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., provides an around-the-clock conduit for
information and coordinated response. Together, these layers make a formidable defense – they provide a
level of security second to none in the commercial power sector.
The US is prepared to handle any potential security threats from terrorism on nuclear
facilities
Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT A
CROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis
The United States has taken steps to improve the security of nuclear power plants against terrorist
attack or sabotage. Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission launched a top-to-bottom review of security procedures and requirements. Despite these
updated security requirements, some independent groups continue to express concern about security
vulnerabilities at U.S. nuclear power plants. In part to address such concerns, Congress placed statutory
requirements for nuclear plant security in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In particular, the act requires
that each nuclear plant conduct force-on-force exercises at least once every three years, which is the
NRC’s current policy. The act also calls for the exercises to simulate threats in the design-basis-threat
(DBT) and for the NRC “to mitigate any potential conflict of interest that could influence the results of
a force-on-force exercise, as the Commission determines to be necessary and appropriate.” In addition, the
act requires the NRC to revise the DBT at least every eighteen months, factoring in all conceivable modes
of attack, including use of multiple teams of attackers, several plant employees aiding the attackers,
and large explosives. The new law also includes requirements to fingerprint and conduct background
checks of plant personnel and for the NRC to consult with the Department of Homeland Security
about the vulnerability of proposed nuclear facilities to terrorist attack. Until June 2006, private citizens
and nongovernmental organizations were stymied in post-9/11 attempts to challenge the government and
industry about security concerns at U.S. nuclear power plants. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reviewing the
vulnerability of a proposed spent nuclear fuel facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. The
SDI 2008 104 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
NRC rejected the security review under NEPA in part because it believed that security is already carefully
evaluated outside of environmental legal requirements.
SDI 2008 105 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Much of the oil revenue goes to countries that don't like the United States, and some of it ends up in the hands
of terrorists. The country's oil dependence is a national security issue, a climate issue and an economic issue,
McCain said. In remarks prior to taking questions from the audience, McCain said he would stop the spending
spree that Congress has been engaged in over the past several years. He said the United States is winning the war in
Iraq, and he criticized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination,
for not visiting the country to see what is happening firsthand."My friends, this is about leadership," he said.
McCain mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., only once, and as an afterthought. He mentioned President Reagan
several times but did not mention President Bush.
SDI 2008 106 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Terrorists won’t attack a reactor and the damage would be minimal anyway
Iain Murray, reporter/political scientist, 16 Jun 2008, National Review, “Nuclear power? – yes, please”,
Proquest, AB
There is some concern that nuclear power plants present an attractive target for terrorists. After the
attacks of Osama bin Laden's impromptu air force in 2001, the Department of Energy commissioned a
study into the effects of a fully fueled jetliner's hitting a reactor containment vessel at maximum speed.
In none of the simulations was containment breached. Given the massive investment that would be
needed to compromise a nuclear power station, it is highly unlikely that terrorists would seek to attack
such a hard target -- especially when their revealed preference has been for soft targets offering the
maximum possible loss of civilian life.
SDI 2008 108 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Uranium prices
Demand for uranium increasing now.
Michael Angwin, director of the Australian Uranium Association, April 29, 2008 OPINION pg.18 LC
The remainder of Falk and Williams' article was mostly a point-scoring attempt. They disparage the uranium
industry for being ``small''. Of course, even ``small'' export industries play an important role in Australia's
prosperity. Global demand for uranium is being driven by climate change and energy security. Australia's
exports will grow rapidly under those influences, with substantial economic benefits for South Australia. Falk
and Williams make the surprising claim that the Australian uranium industry ``ignores'' greenhouse-friendly
renewables. This is classic verballing. Renewables do have a key role in addressing climate change. That role
should ultimately be shaped by informed technological and economic judgments having regard to the energy
issues facing the world. Finally, on climate change, it is worth bearing in mind that nuclear power produces about
the same amount of greenhouse gas as wind and hydro and less than solar power. In addition, Australia's
uranium exports avoid about 400 million tons of greenhouse gas every year in producing nuclear power
overseas, compared with the coal that would otherwise be used.
Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very
different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report
(PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and
only supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available
weapons-grade uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s
Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant
increases in uranium prices in the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound.
However, analysts say the uranium market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not
transparent.
Global warming provides political cover for increasing nuclear power. England proves.
Steven J. Milloy 6/18/07 “Hold the Line on Global Warming” Originally found on Junkscience.com o.z.
http://cei.org/gencon/019,05984.cfm
When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was to reduce Britain’s
economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she
didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil,
which empowered Middle Eastern states. So Thatcher latched onto her science adviser’s notion that
man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the
perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or
Arab oil states. She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research, a
move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism.
The Europeans now see global warming as a means of hampering U.S. economic competitiveness through
increased energy prices. In a global warming-worried world, it becomes more expensive to use coal, for
example. About 52 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by burning coal. France, in contrast, gets 80
percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Guess whose economy takes the hit. The Europeans also know
that environmentalists and trial lawyers will ensure that greenhouse gas emissions regulations are strictly
enforced in the U.S. The same cannot be said for Europe.
SDI 2008 111 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT DA Politics – they say “Obama will do the plan (DA turns the
case)”
Obama Against Going Nuclear
Christina Bellantoni, 7-7-08, The Washington Times, GOP launches television ad blitz in swing states; Economy
takes focus, lexis, bc
But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes. No to nuclear. No to more
production. No new solutions," a narrator says. "Barack: just the party line." The spot will run in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both parties have identified these states as critical battlegrounds for
the Nov. 4 general election, and both candidates have made multiple visits. The RNC plans to spend about
$3 million onthe ad, its first that targets Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. An
Obama campaign spokesman labeled the ad an "attack" and said the energy crisis can be solved only through
honest debate. "There's a real choice in this election between John McCain 's promise to continue the Bush
approach of trying to drill our way out of our energy crisis - which even he admits won't lower prices this
summer - or Barack's plan to provide meaningful short-term relief for our families and to make a historic
investment in alternative energy development that will create millions of new jobs, keep the cost of energy
affordable and secure our energy independence once and for all," spokesman Hari Sevugan said. The
Republican ad accuses Mr. Obama of saying "no to nuclear," though the senator from Illinois has been
criticized by environmentalists for his qualified past support for nuclear power. Mr. Obama has panned Mr.
McCain's proposal for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. The RNC cites a December campaign stop in
Newton, Iowa, where Mr. Obama told voters, "I am not a nuclear energy proponent." A recent McCain
Web ad used a longer version of the same remark while arguing that Mr. Obama says "no" to "clean, safe
nuclear energy." Mr Brown will arrive in New Delhi on Sunday [20 January] for a two-day visit to India -
his first as the prime minister of Britain. Strengthening education and trade links, and learning from India's
experience of promoting cohesion in a multicultural and multi-religious society, will also engage his attention
here.
SDI 2008 112 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP States
Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million
per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal
obligation the federal government has to energy companies.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks,
each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel
to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S.
nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses
had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally
planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and
operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.
The counterplan can’t offer cradle-to-grave fuel cycle services which undermines anti-
proliferation efforts.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for
management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of
the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation
with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel
and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse
implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the
ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The
ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear
technologies.
SDI 2008 113 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear power produces less c02, is more affordable, and can provide a substantial amount
of power – it’s better than all the other alternatives.
Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy
Nuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criteria by which to judge any viable
alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or
petroleum fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved. The
cooling process does produce water vapour, but water vapour and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases
in the same sense that Roger Federer and I are both tennis players (and water vapour emissions, moreover,
can be controlled). The environmental downsides of nuclear power are therefore not any more severe
than other alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar power, and are arguably less severe than
biofuels like the ethanol that Obama heartily supports. These energy sources all entail waste heat,
produce solid waste and have other drawbacks - but the environmental drawbacks of all of them,
nukes included, are quite modest. From a fiscal perspective, nuclear power enjoys enormous
advantages over other environmentally friendly energies. At their present state of technological
development, nuclear reactors can already power large industrial societies. Wind and solar power are
not there yet, and biofuels (particularly ethanol) are something of an embarrassing racket, being
extraordinarily inefficient and requiring huge government subsidies to be propped up.
It will take 1200 years for other alternative energies to catch nuclear power.
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP
It’s a shame this is an online discussion, because surely Michael Mariotte couldn’t have written his remarks
with a straight face. You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S.
electricity supplies since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity
demand, it constitutes more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit
greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over
that same time period—even with subsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their
share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1 percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take
renewable technologies another twelve hundred years just to equal the share of electricity production
that nuclear energy has provided since 1992. But just to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, let’s take a
more generous look at what wind power’s true believers are saying, as reported by Reuters last June from the
American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference in Los Angeles: “The U.S. wind power industry will
see half a trillion dollars of investment by 2030 to take the renewable source up to 20 percent of U.S.
electricity generation, an industry conference heard on Monday.” Hmmm … 20 percent by 2030. Remind me
again which technology’s offerings Michael proclaims to be “too little, too late.” The silly premise that
Michael and many other critics employ with regard to nuclear energy’s clean-air benefits is to suggest that,
simply because a substantial number of new nuclear plants is needed to accommodate our sector’s “wedge”
of carbon prevention, then construction shouldn’t be undertaken at all. That line of thinking used to be called
throwing out the baby with the bath water. The reality is that all carbon-free energy technologies, working
hand in hand with improved energy efficiency and conservation measures, are needed to meet this threat.
AT CP Biofuels
Biofuels, especially ethanol, use too much energy.
Peter Pachal, technology editor of the SCI FI Channel, 9-27-07, DVice, “SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no
power “,http://dvice.com/archives/2007/09/shift_nuclear_power_is_better.php, VP
Forget the whole genre of biofuels. They're a mirage, due to something called ERoEI: energy return on
energy invested. It takes too much fuel to make these fuels. Ethanol is only the most notorious example
of a bad bunch. Sure, it comes from corn, but corn production is impossible without massive inputs of
chemical fertilizer made largely from natural gas — you know, one of those fossil fuels we're running
out of. With other alternative fuels, such as oil shale and tar sands, the story varies but the ending is
the same. These technological shell games are unlikely to run the power plants (or vehicles) of the
future.
SDI 2008 115 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP Hydroelectric
No way to expand hydroelectric power.
Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
The future for hydroelectric generation is rather dim. Little unexploited potential remains. Indeed, there
are pressures even today to remove hydropower dams in place because of various environmental concerns.
And whenever an oil supply crisis emerges, a call for greater use of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
inevitably arises. Their future is always just around the corner but we have yet to turn that corner and I cannot
say for certain that we ever will. That leaves the nuclear option. The nuclear industry is far more regulated
than are competing forms of energy. With electricity becoming more essential to our way of life, is it not time
to develop a set of criteria to measure the effectiveness of the individual forms of power generation, to give
nuclear energy the benefit of a level playing field?
SDI 2008 116 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP Solar
Nuclear Energy is a consistent source of energy and more cost effective than solar.
Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with
the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp
With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other
technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great
appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing
demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is
fickle and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand
power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is
available rain or shine.
Solar power is too expensive and can’t be used in many areas of the country.
James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment &
Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Idaho does not rank in the top 10 states for wind power suitability, according to the U.S. Department
of Energy. Moreover, the state's northern latitude makes it ill-suited for solar power. Even in the ideal
location of southern California's Mojave Desert, solar power cannot be produced at prices anywhere
near being cost-competitive with conventional power plants. Nuclear Power Less Expensive Otter's
stumping for nuclear power is likely to boost the chances for construction of the proposed Grand View
nuclear power plant. The facility, which will generate 1,600 megawatts of power at a construction cost of
$3.5 billion, is being touted as a more cost-effective means for Idaho to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions. By comparison, a state-of-the-art solar power plant currently being proposed in Florida by
Florida Power & Light will cost nearly half as much money as the proposed Idaho nuclear power plant
and will produce less than one-fifth as much power. A similar solar plant in Idaho would be even less
efficient than the proposed Florida solar power facility, as Idaho gets far less solar energy than Florida.
"Nuclear power is the only economically feasible means to reduce greenhouse gases, if we assume for
the sake of argument that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthwhile public policy goal," said Jay Lehr,
science director for The Heartland Institute. "Impressive new technology is also making nuclear
power safer and less expensive all the time," Lehr added. "The future of energy production in this
country is definitely nuclear."
Future nuclear power plants will be better and safer and wil cost way less than solar or
wind power.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined
design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other
components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per
plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind
power.
Wind and solar energies would require massive amounts of land to replace nuclear power.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an
honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study found
the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity for New
York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500 square
miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear Station in
North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be required to
replace the nuclear facility with solar power.
SDI 2008 118 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP Wind
Wind power can’t provide enough energy
Macer Hall, Political Editor, 1-11-08, The Express, Nuclear power gets go ahead, lexis, bc
MINISTERS yesterday gave the go-ahead for a new generation of privately run nuclear power stations to help
secure Britain's energy for the rest of the century. They claimed the multibillion-pound reactors will not be
subsidised by taxpayers - but admitted the Government could be forced to intervene in an emergency. Business
and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton confirmed the move in the House of Commons yesterday He said:
"Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century." He claimed the
controversial power was "safe and affordable." The decision follows an acceptance by the Government that
"green" power sources, including wind turbines and solar panels, cannot guarantee the nation's energy
supply. Ministers are to streamline planning processes to allow new reactors to be built. Last night Gordon
Brown said that the new nuclear power stations were in the "national interest". "I said that this would be the
year when we made the right long-term decisions for the future of the country and one of these decisions is that
we have safe, secure energy. "We do not want to be dependent on other countries and we want a low-
carbon form of energy, " Mr Brown said.
Nuclear power is more cost effective and isn’t subject to fuel volatility.
Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with
the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp
With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other
technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great
appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand.
Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle and
seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available
rain or shine.
Nuclear Power requires fewer acres to generate power than wind farms
Dr. Patricia A. Lapoint is professor of management at McMurry University and president of P&L Consultants.
6/7/2008. Abilene Reporter News. There's a price for subsidizing wind energy with taxpayer dollars. AP
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/press/theres-a-price-for-subsidizing-wind-energy-with-taxpayer-dollars
Currently, there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States that generate over 97,000 MW. Nuclear
plants operate at 90 percent capacity compared to 30-33 percent for wind farms (ERCOT). For a
comparable amount of electricity output, a nuclear power plant requires approximately 50 acres of land
vs. 80,000 acres of land for wind farms -- 1,600 times the land usage for wind generated power! For the
same or less taxpayer money, why not put those taxpayer dollars into more nuclear power plants and
protect our natural environment from the thousands of square miles of industrial wind turbines dotting the
landscape?
Future nuclear power plants will be better and safer and wil cost way less than solar or
wind power.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Regarding future nuclear power plants, some estimates indicate a plant of standardized, streamlined
design, with many more built-in, passive safety features, and therefore fewer pumps, valves, and other
components, could be built in five years, as is already being accomplished in France. The price per
plant comes to about $3 billion, which makes nuclear power much less expensive than solar or wind
power.
Wind and solar energies would require massive amounts of land to replace nuclear power.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an
honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study found
the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity for New
York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500 square
miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear Station in
North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be required to
replace the nuclear facility with solar power.
SDI 2008 121 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP Natural Gas
Nuclear power is less expensive and isn’t subject to fuel volatility.
Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with
the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp
With the cost of money now at historic lows, nuclear technology is even more cost-competitive to other
technologies, as costs are fixed year to year, like a mortgage with a fixed rate. Solar power holds great
appeal but remains the highest cost source and cannot supply enough to meet California’s growing demand.
Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases and volatility. The wind is fickle
and seldom available on hot summer days when air conditioning, comfort and health all demand power.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has known costs not subject to future fuel volatility, and is available
rain or shine.
Nuclear energy has a lower energy input-output ration than natural gas
Alex Hutchinson, writer, Oct. 2006, “The Next Atomic Age: Can Safe Nuclear Power Work for America?”,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1, VP
The amount of energy inputs required for a nuclear power plant with 1GWe capacity over its lifetime of
40 years is around 50 PJ. Its lifetime production of electrical energy is about 3000 PJ. In other words,
the energy input is about 1.7% of the total produced energy. As a point of reference, for natural gas the
published figures range from 3.8% to 20%.
AT CP Tidal power
Nuclear power cheaper than tidal power.
Financial Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC,
"Nuclear power generation has made great strides," Lord Broers, president of the UK's Royal Academy of
Engineering, wrote in the FT earlier this year. "After a period when it was believed to be hopelessly uneconomic,
it is now close to competing in real economic terms with gas-powered generation. And even after making
allowance for decommissioning costs, nuclear is significantly cheaper than wind or wave power."
SDI 2008 124 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Perm solvency - Only nuclear power can make a cap and trade system feasible.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact,
nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm
To argue that the waste problem must first be solved, but then to stand in the way of building Yucca
Mountain or reprocessing nuclear fuel (both of which are safe methods of waste management), is
equally dubious. If one views atmospheric emissions as such a threat that CO2 reductions should be made
the central organizing tenet of America's economic and energy policy (and thus society), then the moral
policy should be to achieve that objective in an economically rational way. The motives of anyone who
denies society access to the technologies best capable of achieving its stated goals, either by explicit
antagonism or through implicit passivity, must be questioned. On the other hand, if CO2 reduction is truly
the objective, then maximizing America's nuclear resources as quickly as possible should be a top
priority. While doing so would still not likely allow the U.S. to meet the levels of nuclear power
described in either the EIA or the EPA analyses, it could at least minimize the economic impact of
Lieberman–Warner.
AT CP Carbon Taxes
1. perm do both the plan and the counterplan
ABC News 7/4/08 “Nuclear power could become popular: Switkowski” o.z.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294142.htm Uranium explorers say the public could
warm to the idea of nuclear power once the costs associated with carbon trading are released. A report
on the cost of climate change from economist Professor Ross Garnaut is expected to be made public today.
West Australian uranium explorers are hoping Australians will change their attitude to nuclear energy when
the cost of an emissions trading scheme hits home. The physicist and businessman who chaired the Howard
Government's nuclear task force, Ziggy Switkowski, says nuclear power would reduce emissions. "If fossil
fuels are progressively seen to be unacceptable because of their emissions then the only alternative to
fossil fuel for large scale production of electricity remains nuclear power," he said. Mr Switkowski
says other countries have made the most of reasonably priced nuclear power. "I would assume that the
recent trip that Prime Minister Rudd has made along with Minister Carr around the world would have
exposed him to the changing opinions right around the world," he said. "Countries are now supporting
and in fact accelerating their own plans to introduce more nuclear power into their mix."
SDI 2008 126 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Dry cask storage will cost the government billions of dollars in lawsuits if they don’t also
pursue Yucca and the DOE won’t cooperate which means the counterplan solves zero of the
case. They can’t fiat over this – our evidence says Congress mandated a similar policy
before and the DOE just ignored it.
Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk
Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other
permanent deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982
Act pursuant to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent
per kilowatt hour and the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for
transport to permanent storage beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this
agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342
million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for
business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected.
Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential temporary storage for high-level nuclear
waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving forward "in the near term with at
least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked, contending that interim storage "is
clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act bars the DOE from taking
title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a license for the permanent
repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting the application to license
Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.
Although dry casks are basically good there is a slightly bigger risk of terrorism.
Koerner ’08, 4/15, staff writer, Slate Magazine, Lexis. tk
The conventional wisdom is that these dry-cask storage sites will suffice for at least the next 100 years. But
they'll fill up at some point, and some worry over their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes,
or theft. The whole rationale for Yucca Mountain was to secure all high-level nuclear waste in a single, safe
location; with that project now imperiled, what's a nuclear nation to do?
Yucca Mountain Key To Nuclear Power Expansion And National And Environmental
Security
Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump;
State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc
The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store
70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online. And the amount
of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear
power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors.
The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is
absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday. The license application, which is 8,600 pages long, was filed with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has up to four years to act. If everything goes unfettered,
Bodman said, Yucca Mountain could be open for business by 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion. Although
the impetus for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be greater than ever, the legal and
political hurdles for the project are vast.
Yucca Mountain Only Way To Stop Climate Change Without Hurting The Economy
Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change,
lexis, bc
While there's broad agreement on the need for more investment in solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
energies, expected amendments on the needs to relaunch a nuclear power initiative could also further splinter
support for the bill. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a long-awaited license application
to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada - a move that supporters say is essential to
revive the nuclear-power industry. Nuclear-power advocates hope to use the global-warming bill as a vehicle
for reviving the industry. They make the case that without a significant increase in nuclear power, it will be
impossible to lower carbon emissions without a blow to US living standards. "It's time we begin the
nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South
Carolina, in a statement after the announcement. "If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission,
nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today."
SDI 2008 129 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT CP International repository
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan.
The free trade principle masks the actual negative aspects of sharing waste when
everything but waste should be shared.
Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental
Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks,
http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author.
One of the reasons why international repositories seem more acceptable to some rather than others
may have to do with a prior faith in the beneªts of world trade. This is not to say that those who are
averse to international repositories are anti-trade but that they probably believe, as BAN does, that
hazardous waste materials, as a special case, are not suitable for trade among inequitable partners.
What are the Scientiªc Motivations for International Repositories? McCombie and Chapman4 state that:
a) geological disposal is “the only foreseeable sustainable solution”; and that b) not all countries
possess optimum geological conditions for such disposal. Thus, if “a” and “b” are taken together, it
must be concluded, assert McCombie and Chapman, that multinational repositories are essential.
Needless to say, propositions “a” and “b” are debatable, thus throwing doubt on the conclusion. For
those who start out sceptical of international repositories, yet who are sensitive to a) the advantages of
geological disposal, and b) the advantages of internationally-minded solutions, then another way out of
McCombie and Chapman’s conclusion is to seek international collaboration. In other words, Alan
Marshall • 3 3. Basel Action Network 2002. 4. McCombie and Chapman 2002. countries should be
encouraged to share their skills and expertise, experience and knowledge, hardware and software, staff
and techniques, strategies and policies, operating procedures and management practices, as well as
political advice, values and beliefs. In fact, they should share everything BUT the waste in order to help
each other. On this score, the Swedish-based radioactive waste ethics committee called the Alternatives
Group, concluded: The ethical principle of an equitable distribution of beneªts and burdens also makes it
difªcult to justify exporting waste from Sweden. The Alternatives Group, like many other actors, has drawn
the conclusion that we must ªnd a solution within the country’s borders. This does not, however, exclude the
possibility of co-operation with other countries.5
SDI 2008 134 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Shipping fuel to Siberia would be impractical, complex, and defy the NPT
Keith Rogers, 5-30-08, Review Journal, “Siberia repository for nuclear waste called 'impractical'”, rks,
http://www.lvrj.com/news/19384624.html.
Shipping thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel from U.S. nuclear power reactors across the
ocean to an international repository in Siberia, if one is built, would be "impractical," a nuclear industry
official said Thursday. The comments of Steve Kraft, a senior director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, were
made in reference to Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain's statement this
week that an out-of-country, international repository for nuclear waste could eliminate the need for a U.S.
repository at Yucca Mountain. Kraft was speaking in a call to reporters in anticipation that the Department of
Energy will submit its long-awaited license application to U.S. regulators for the Yucca Mountain site, 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas. Not only would shipping such large amounts of highly radioactive waste
overseas be impractical, but "it is also geopolitically very complex," Kraft said. "My guess ... what he
(McCain) meant was the right role for an international repository was for smaller countries' (used fuel) that
could be brought together in one location," he said. Kraft cited a 1993 case involving a very small amount of
used fuel from New York's Shoreham nuclear plant's operators who considered shipping it to France for
reprocessing after the plant was shut down. The company had filed an application with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for an export permit. While all the requirements could be met, and the NRC staff
recommended to proceed with the plan, the Department of Defense intervened with a letter saying that
such an action was inconsistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy.
AT CP Reprocessing
Reprocessing more expensive than direct disposal
Daniel Horner, 11-19-07, Nuclear Fuels, Federal corporation an option for spent fuel, DOE official says, lexis, bc
Also at the hearing, Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag testified that "across a wide range of
plausible assumptions," reprocessing would be more expensive than direct disposal of spent fuel. He
estimated that the cost of reprocessing would be about 25% higher than direct disposal. The CBO analysis
was based largely on two studies that came to different conclusions on the comparative costs. A 2006 study by
Boston Consulting Group, commissioned by Areva, said the costs were roughly similar; a 2003 report by
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that reprocessing was significantly more expensive.
Orszag acknowledged there were "major sources of uncertainty" in the CBO analysis and that the costs of
reprocessing and direct disposal were comparable "under limited circumstances." He also said that policy
makers may have considerations other than cost, such as "extending uranium resources." But Matthew
Bunn, a former US nonproliferation official and one of the authors of the Kennedy School study, said the policy
factors tilt against reprocessing.
SDI 2008 136 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT K Discursive
We create in-round education necessary to restore U.S. nuclear leadership.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed in
2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008
The Council encourages greater education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in
nuclear energy--urging our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support
policies and programs that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.
SDI 2008 137 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT K Capitalism
Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain
mired in poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized
the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear
power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from
poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be
made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind
power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to
resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of
renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time,
nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”
Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much
difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol
should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The
other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit
carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between
global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the
courage to make.”
SDI 2008 139 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Fear mongering
Wind and solar energies are inefficient, nuclear energy is only prevented by government
propaganda
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Although Cravens believes alternate energy sources such as wind and solar are important, she offers an
honest assessment of their huge limitations. For example, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study
found the Indian Point Nuclear Plant near New York City produces about 10 percent of the electricity
for New York State. To replace that power with a wind farm would require 300,000 acres--nearly 500
square miles--of windmills operating under the most favorable conditions. At the McGuire Nuclear
Station in North Carolina, where strong winds are rare, 50 square miles of photovoltaic cells would be
required to replace the nuclear facility with solar power. Newly Discovered Reality Cravens' book
demonstrates how, time and again, political fear-mongering and misperceptions about risk have
trumped science in the dialogue about the feasibility of nuclear energy. Among the closing words from
this onetime skeptic are these: "How amazing it was to find that something so completely familiar turned out
in reality to be so very different from what I had assumed all my life."
Claims to make nuclear power are ludicrous – there hasn’t been a single death because of
commercial nuclear power.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact,
nna http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm
It is ironic that support for Lieberman–Warner that is based on such unrealistic scenarios is often coupled
with strong antagonism toward nuclear power. Passive support is no better. Given the role of nuclear energy
in minimizing the economic impacts of CO2 reductions, those who support such cuts should actively
support nuclear power. Many politicians and organizations attempt to remain agnostic or tepid
toward nuclear energy by arguing that nuclear power might have a role to play if certain conditions
are met. They then ensure that their conditions are set in such a way as to be unattainable. To suggest
that the nuclear industry must improve its safety record is an example of this. No one has ever died
as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. How does one improve on this?
SDI 2008 141 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
This debate can serve as an educational outlet for correcting misperceptions about Yucca
Mountain
Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science
Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna
A third factor influencing the public's adverse perceptions about YM is the belief that emplacement of HLWs
underground precludes their retrieval in the event of discovery of a major flaw with geologic isolation, a
future decision to reprocess the spent fuel, or the future availability of a superior isolation scheme. However,
this belief ignores one of the major attributes of YM for HLW isolation. The repository is to be constructed
300 meters above the water table within consolidated volcanic strata, a physical setting that lends itself to
retrieval and monitoring of the HLWs (3). Last, and hardly least, is the decades-old public opposition to a
geologic repository, not only in Nevada and across the United States, but in Europe as well (17, 18). This opposition
stems from various concerns and/or agendas, including: fear of nuclear radiation; distrust of governmental and
technical community assurances regarding safety; opposition to nuclear power; and various NIMBY ("not in my
backyard")-related issues (17, 18). We suspect that even in the absence of technical questions regarding YM, it
would still be opposed by segments of the public. In view of the above matters, it has been argued that HLWs
should be stored at the surface, perhaps even for a century or two during which time better solutions may develop
(17). However, extended surface storage of the HLWs (presently about 60,000 metric tons) at 72 commercial reactor
sites--many adjacent to metropolitan areas and all next to rivers, lakes, or the ocean--introduces its own set of
uncertainties. For example, what is the likelihood that more pressing future national problems could cause final
isolation of the HLWs to be postponed indefinitely? What is the probability that the funds for HLW disposal, now
being generated by a surcharge on nuclear-generated electricity, will still be available a century in the future? In the
event of accidents, sabotage, or a loss of institutional control, a variety of scenarios can be envisioned that would
create environmental hazards greater than any that could result from emplacement of HLWs in an underground
repository. In their analysis of the likelihood of future human intrusion into a HLW repository, the National Research
Council concluded [(9), p. 106], "there is no technical basis for predicting either the nature or the frequency of
occurrence of intrusions." This conclusion applies even more compellingly to HLWs presently stored at the surface
not only at nuclear power plants but also at dozens of other locations (see map, page 1426). Given that both
geologic isolation of HLWs and their storage at the surface are fraught with uncertainty, how might we
proceed with the disposition of HLWs in a manner that restores public confidence? First, it behooves the
earth science community, the involved federal agencies, and the mainstream environmental groups to inform
the courts, the public, and legislators that, in view of the unending questions, potential surprises, and
limitations on prediction that are inherent to the scientific endeavor, the fate of HLWs over time frames of
hundreds of millennia is not knowable. There need be no embarrassment to admit to the limitations of our
explanatory and predictive capabilities. After all, questions regarding the cause of the ice ages still abound after
more than a century and a half of study (19), and earthquake prediction remains elusive after decades of work (20).
Decisions on the isolation of HLWs, as well as on other pressing environmental issues, will likely have to be made
with incomplete knowledge. Second, because of the absence of experience in the construction and operation of a
geologic repository for HLWs, and given the possibility that such efforts are likely to encompass several generations
(current plans call for keeping the repository open for more than a century), it appears prudent to construct and
operate a proposed repository in stages, initially as a pilot plant, and with experience from each operational stage
providing feedback to that which follows. The use of such an adaptive management approach was recently proposed
in great detail by the National Research Council (21). Last, the importance of monitoring during the construction
and operation of each stage cannot be overstated, as has been argued for civil engineering endeavors in general (22).
Only monitoring over a time frame of decades to perhaps a century can provide the data needed to begin to calibrate,
test, and, as necessary, modify, current conceptual models that assess the ability of a proposed repository to isolate
HLWs for even 10,000 years. In summary, quantification of the fate of HLWs, whether emplaced underground or
left at the surface is problematic. Should geologic isolation of the HLWs be opted for--as recommended repeatedly
by national and international panels (9, 16, 17, 21)--a pilot plant approach to repository development (21) would be
prudent. The physical setting of the proposed YM repository (i.e., in consolidated rocks ~300 meters above the
water table) lends itself to such an approach by permitting ready access to and monitoring of the wastes (the
major assets of surface storage), while isolating them at depth at a single location (the chief asset of geologic
disposal) on remote federal land.
SDI 2008 142 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Yucca Mountain’s use for nuclear waste is unpopular and some concerns will never be
answered.
Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science
Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna
In papers published over a quarter of a century ago , we discussed the assets and liabilities of isolating
high-level radioactive wastes (HLWs) (chiefly spent fuel from nuclear reactors) from the environment by
burying them in areas with deep water tables, specifically within the several-hundred-meter-thick
unsaturated zones common to the arid and semiarid Southwest U.S.A. This idea--endorsed for further
study by our colleagues at the U.S. Geological Survey and by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --eventually led to identification of Yucca
Mountain as a potential repository for HLWs. In the ensuing decades, a voluminous body of knowledge
of the geology, hydrology, geochemistry, and paleoclimatology of YM and the surrounding southern Great
Basin was acquired and documented in hundreds of studies by federal, state, university, and industry
scientists. As a result of these efforts, this region is the best-characterized portion of the Great Basin.
Despite this unprecedented body of earth science information YM remains controversial for storage
and possible ultimate disposal of HLWs. With the benefit of hindsight, we examine several reasons
for this outcome, two of which would apply to any site being considered for the geologic isolation of
HLWs, and suggest a potential way to move beyond the controversy. Figure 1 Sites in the United
States at which spent nuclear fuel, other high-level radioactive waste, and/or surplus plutonium are stored at
the surface. Yucca Mountain, NV, also shown The idea of storing radioactive waste at YM was born into
political controversy. In 1987, Congress, via an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,
selected YM from a group of three previously identified potential repository sites. The 1982 Act had
mandated detailed study of all three sites before selection of a finalist, a requirement dispensed with by the
amendment. Not surprisingly, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 became known
among Nevadans as the "screw Nevada bill." That YM had been identified several years earlier as a
potential repository solely on the strength of its technical attributes was thus irrevocably lost on the
public who rightly resented the change in site-selection rules. A second factor contributing to the
controversy is the nature of scientific and first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors. The more we learn about a
given subject--especially one involving the interface of multiple disciplines over geologic time frames--the
more complex it becomes. Another decade of study of YM will likely provide the data needed to
address some of the current questions about this site, but probably will also introduce new questions,
as well as unearth surprises. Thus, there is unlikely to be complete closure. Nor will honest
disagreements among scientists and engineers regarding some YM issues likely ever cease. This reality
enables critics of this use of YM to ignore major attributes of the site while highlighting the unknowns and
technical disputes for the press. Not surprisingly, the press, the public, and our elected officials are left
with the impression of a flawed site.
Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public about waste disposal.
PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at
the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste, nna
The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been
impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these
perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the
discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and
the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward
creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent
repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for
difficult social and political issues to be resolved.
SDI 2008 143 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Centrifuge technology
Enrichment using centrifuge technology is energy efficient
Tribune Business News ’08 (9 Jul, Dee DePass, Financial and Political reporter for the Tribune Business
News, “An enriched opportunity for Alliant: As the appeal of nuclear power grows, Alliant Techsystems is set to
become a key player”, AB, Proquest)
The Eden Prairie company will complete a centrifuge rotor-tube factory in West Virginia next month
that will play a crucial role in delivering cheaper enriched uranium to the resurgent nuclear power
industry. Alliant's 125,000-square-foot plant will employ 120 people and produce 11,500 rotor tubes for
U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC). Alliant's towering rotors, which are key components inside USEC's
centrifuges, rotate to separate and concentrate desired uranium isotopes. The resulting enriched
uranium will be sold to nuclear power plants around the globe, USEC officials said. Centrifuge
technology was developed nearly 20 years ago but shelved in its infancy by the U.S. Department of
Energy in favor of a laser-based technology that didn't pan out. Centrifuge technology made a comeback
after 2001. It uses less electricity and operates at a fraction of the cost of the more common gas-
diffusion enrichment methods. "When USEC goes from the gaseous diffusion process to the gas
centrifuge process it uses 95 percent less electricity to produce the same amount of enriched uranium.
With today's energy costs you can see why this [technology] is very, very important," said Alliant
Aerospace Structures Vice President Mark Messick. "This centrifuge plant is going to be the only one
that uses U.S. technology, so it's strategically important to America," Messick said. Nuclear energy is a
novel venture for the $4.2 billion Alliant Techsystems (ATK). The company began making tubes in 2006 for
USEC's demonstration plant in Piketon, Ohio. ATK officials expect their initial $10 million pilot project to
blossom into a full production contract worth about $250 million. USEC will complete an adjacent
commercial production plant next year to make 11,500 centrifuges -- each with an ATK rotor inside.
Honeywell, Babcock & Wilcox in Virginia and Major Tool and Machine in Indiana will also supply that
plant.
Uranium suppliers
Kazakhstan is on pace to become the world’s largest producer in Uranium
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations November 2, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP
Interest in the use of nuclear power is on the rise, as the world’s growing demand for cheap, reliable
electricity vies with the need to reduce air pollution. Nonproliferation of weapons and the safe disposal
of spent nuclear fuel dominate the debate on nuclear power, while nuclear fuel supplies have garnered
little attention. Russia and Europe, currently shut out of the normal U.S. nuclear fuel market, want to sell
directly to U.S. utilities, raising concerns about the U.S. enrichment industry. Meanwhile uranium mining is
making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as infrastructure problems, stable access
to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog the industry. Discerning Supply and
Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia
leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by
Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less
than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a
2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall
amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher
the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings
mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up
to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of
uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently,
there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under
construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined
uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear
Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is
projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-
reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel
can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces The
uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold
War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons
stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars
a pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a
very different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report
(PDF), by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only
supplied about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade
uranium, a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the
need for fuel at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in
the last few years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium
market also can be difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry
that the lagging uranium industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays
in the expansion of nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only
starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate
them,” says Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there
are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under
construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium
market because of its nuclear weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a
shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India
obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than
half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say
Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia
has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country.
SDI 2008 146 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
SMART Act
The SMART Act will promote the establishment of nuclear fuel storage and recycling
facilities, along with economic incentives
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici
Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e-
49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, last night introduced bipartisan legislation that will allow America to fully realize
the promise of nuclear energy by laying the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. Domenici,
along with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)
introduced the Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act
(S.3215). The legislation promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel
storage and recycling facilities. The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program
between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry to finance engineering and design work
—and the development of license applications-- for up to two spent fuel recycling facilities. The bill also
establishes an economic incentive program for communities that wish to host interim storage facilities
for waste. The SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling
services and for storage facility operators. “After a decade of hard work, there can now be no doubt that
a nuclear renaissance is under way. Increasing our use of nuclear energy is the only way for America to
meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A
sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential. I’m pleased to
introduce this legislation which takes the first step toward resolving the question of nuclear waste,” Domenici
said.
“Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously
increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate base load power. In the past, the issue of
waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding nuclear power, and I’m hopeful this
legislation will jump-start recycling in America – leading to more clean, reliable nuclear power here at
home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have demonstrated that recycling can be
conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way,” Sessions said. “Nuclear power is one of the most promising
alternative technologies that can help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It emits no
pollutants, and does not contribute to global warming. But if we do not get serious about managing nuclear
waste, the technology will not advance. This bill will finally help resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that has
paralyzed U.S. nuclear energy production for more than 30 years,” Landrieu said.
SDI 2008 148 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The SMART Act will be funded by a revolving fund, which will not need annual Congress
appropriations
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 6-27-2008, “Domenici
Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Promote Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=a814fb5f-3c9e-
49c7-b7ac-9419f4361710, CM
“Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions, it is vital that we tear down all the
roadblocks that have slowed nuclear power’s revival. Setting up a program for the government to help the
private sector develop nuclear waste recycling plants, creating a funding mechanism to pay for the
work and then allowing only the communities that want the economic activity that a waste recycling
plant will produce to apply are all useful steps that will help the economics of nuclear power. It will
allow for the economic recycling of fuel and help reduce waste volumes and their toxicity protecting the
environment,” Murkowski said. The SMART Act is funded by allowing access to a small portion (around
five percent) of the $20 billion Nuclear Waste Fund. The bill establishes a $1 billion revolving fund,
which will also receive contributions from annual interest on the Nuclear Waste Fund. The revolving
fund will allow projects to proceed without the need for annual appropriations from Congress.
SDI 2008 149 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
GNEP
GNEP solves prolif.
Dipka Bhambhani, 3-17-08 , Inside Energy and Federal Lands, DOE plan depicts non-governmental waste
program, lexis, bc
GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce
proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the
waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations processes
over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.
GNEP will allow us to recycle nuclear fuel and produce even more electricity
Green ’8, Michael, a physicist, 7/11, Charleston Gazette, “Nuclear power, recycling needed now”Lexis, tk
AT A time when America is paying $1.5 billion a day for imported oil, it seems incomprehensible that
something isn't being done to remove the albatross around the neck of nuclear power. For that we can thank
Congress. It is supporting renewable energy, everything from solar and wind power to biofuels and other
green sources. While renewable sources might help meet peak energy demand, they simply can't provide the
"base-load" electricity that our nation needs to drive the economy. Whether or not we like nuclear power, the
reality is that, next to coal, no other source of electricity is more important. Nuclear plants account for 20
percent of the nation's electricity, operating safely and dependably, free of the whims of Middle East sheiks
and corrupt Russians. Yet U.S. nuclear utilities do not have access to a critically important technology that is
available to their counterparts in France, Great Britain, Japan and other countries. The irony is the technology
- known as nuclear recycling, or reprocessing - was developed in the United States a half-century ago but
banned by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, on grounds that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. Often mistaken for nuclear waste, spent fuel possesses uranium and plutonium that can be
chemically recycled into new nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Currently there is 55,000 metric tons of
spent fuel stored at nuclear plant sites around the country, awaiting shipment to a central repository at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. If the spent fuel were to be saved for recycling, it could provide electricity for decades,
extend uranium supplies and significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Experts say recycling in the
United States poses no proliferation risk, and its revival would enable our country to make good use of a
valuable energy resource. Essentially, the only nuclear waste that would need to be shipped to the Nevada
repository for permanent disposal is a relatively small amount of spent fuel that can't be recycled.
President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - known as GNEP - calls for construction of a recycling
plant that would be ready by 2020. GNEP's goal is to encourage the use of nuclear power worldwide, while
preventing the loss or misuse of plutonium. The idea is to persuade countries that are planning to build their
first nuclear power plants to forego recycling and instead obtain reactor fuel from the United States or a few
other countries that already possess recycling capability.
GNEP will put an end to pure plutonium, which can be used to make weapons
Lyman and Von Hippel ‘8, Edwin and Frank, April 2008, Arms Control Today, “Reprocessing Revisited: The
International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” Lexis. tk
Yet only two years after Bush's speech, spurred by the fear that the inability to remove spent nuclear fuel
piling up at reactor sites in the United States and many other countries would threaten a nuclear renaissance,
the Bush administration subsumed its initial proposal into a new scheme known as the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP). One of the chief objectives of GNEP was to promote the virtues of spent nuclear
fuel reprocessing and the civil use of plutonium as a nuclear waste management strategy. Although GNEP
represented a reversal of previous U.S. policies that opposed the spread of reprocessing, the Bush
administration billed GNEP as a nonproliferation initiative because it would still limit reprocessing facilities
to the nuclear-weapons states and Japan and would use reprocessing technologies that would not separate
pure plutonium, unlike the PUREX (plutonium and uranium extraction) technology in use today. GNEP
member states without reprocessing plants would be encouraged to send their spent fuel to other countries for
reprocessing. At U.S. urging, 20 other countries, including South Korea (see page 12), have now joined the
United States in signing a GNEP Statement of Principles that embraces the development and use of
reprocessing technology and contains no commitments on the part of its members to limit the spread of
sensitive fuel cycle facilities such as reprocessing plants. In promoting the development of pyroprocessing
and other experimental separations technologies, the Bush administration says it hopes to persuade those
countries that currently use conventional PUREX reprocessing to switch to these other technologies
eventually, thereby ending the production of pure plutonium. Yet through GNEP, the administration is
promoting reprocessing primarily to countries that do not reprocess at all but rather store their spent fuel.
Spent fuel storage is a far more proliferation nresistant management strategy than any form of reprocessing.
GNEP will allow the United States to cut down on risks of proliferation by giving developing countries the
recycled (harmless) fuel
Idaho National Laboratories ‘7 (anonymous, date not specified), http://nuclear.inel.gov/gnep/. tk
As the demand for energy swells, GNEP invites developing nations to build small nuclear power plants.
More-developed nations would help provide fuel from established advanced facilities capable of recycling,
reprocessing and enriching new fuels. This method would close the fuel cycle, reduce proliferation risks and
make robust power generation a reality for all partner nations.
The reprocessing under GNEP would mean that less uranium would be mined
University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?”
http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk
Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is
reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. GNEP offered
this deal to other nations: If you want to use nuclear electricity, the United States will supply the fuel -- if you
promise to send your waste back to trusty Uncle Sam for reprocessing. Gregory Choppin, a professor of
chemistry at Florida State University who has a long acquaintance with radiation chemistry says efficiency is
a key argument for reprocessing, which extracts more energy from the uranium fuel, and therefore reduces
the need to mine uranium. "If we go into reprocessing to recover the 99.5 percent of unburned uranium, and
recycle it, we would not have to do any more uranium mining for 400 years," says Choppin. "That would be
a tremendous advantage because uranium mining is very dangerous," especially in terms of lung disease,
including cancer.
If the reprocessing under GNEP is followed, the storage at Yucca Mountain won’t be a
problem
University of Wisconsin ‘8, 2/28, “Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: A cure that’s worse than the disease?”
http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=2.txt, tk
Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste, the DOE is
reinvestigating reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. Ahearn says
reprocessing could reduce the needed volume of the repository by 30 percent, which "would go a long way
toward resolving the issue of whether there is enough space in Yucca Mountain.
SDI 2008 152 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Passing GNEP will increase alternate energy innovation at the university level
Opar ‘8, Alisa, staff writer for Plenty magazine, Plenty magazine, 5/29, “In Depth: Can nuclear waste be
recycled?”, Lexis, tk
Through this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department of Energy is awarding tens of
millions of dollars to industry, federal labs, and universities for developing the technology needed to get the
first American recycling facilities and reactors up and running by 2025. In April, the agency announced up to
$7.3 million for advanced reactor research, and publicized an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), which operates six nuclear reactors, to explore fuel recycling. "We're just getting started, but the
project is going to yield technical information used to develop national implementation strategies to manage
nuclear fuel," says TVA spokesman Gil Francis.
SDI 2008 153 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DOE proposed the Global Energy Partnership, aimed at the development, demonstration,
and deployment of advanced separations and burner reactor systems.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
Lastly in February 2006 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a major new initiative, the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) aimed at the development, demonstration and deployment of
advanced separations and burner reactor systems. The initiative has several important features: a) The
demonstration of new separation techniques for recycling nuclear fuel that would allow the U.S. to
close its fuel cycle and to develop somewhat more proliferation-resistant technologies by avoiding the
presence of separated plutonium. In this connection, the U.S. nuclear services firm, Energy Solutions has
acquired many BNFL employees as well as BNFL’s technologies in modern fuel reprocessing and waste
treatment and is seeking to offer an alternative to the MOX fuel cycles without separating pure plutonium.
Similarly AREVACOGEMA, Inc. is also offering the prospect of treatment recycling plants with no separated
plutonium. b)The advancement of the nuclear waste management program within the United States by
coupling these new separation techniques with advanced recycling reactors with the objective of
reducing the volume of waste per reactor that would have to be disposed of in Yucca Mountain. The
program is specifically intended to remove the need to follow the Yucca Mountain Project with several
additional geological repositories. It assumes work will continue that is devoted to
completing the Yucca Mountain Project. c) The establishment of a new international nuclear fuel
assurance regime in order to discourage the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities. A major
long-term aspect of this objective is a proposal that those supplier states with industrial enrichment and fuel
recycling capabilities should work to provide so-called “cradle-to grave” services to states that agree to
refrain from acquiring enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Under this approach the supplier states would
lease enriched uranium to consumer nations and would accept the return of the resultant spent fuel for
recycling. Under the proposal contained in GNEP, achievement of this goal will take some time since such
cradle-to-grave services would be put into place only after the proposed advanced recycling technologies
have been proven and have become operational.
SDI 2008 154 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Sub-seabed disposal
SSD solves.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Storing spent nuclear fuel poses no problem. The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was supposed to open
in 1998, but delays have continued to plague the project. And Cravens mentions an alternative we had
not heard: the Sub-Seabed Operation. Cravens points out that in the ocean there is a vast red-clay
formation that has maintained great stability and uniformity over millions of years--far longer than
the half-lives of almost all the radionuclides in nuclear waste. The clay has low permeability and the
consistency of peanut butter. A pointed steel canister containing high-level nuclear waste dropped to
the ocean floor would sink through this muck to a depth of 30 meters. The continuous rain of
sediments from above would bury it deeper. Many thousands of square miles of seabed like this exist
under many miles of water hundreds of miles from shore. Such sites, though costing several orders of
magnitude less than Yucca Mountain, have long been overlooked as potential storage sites for spent
nuclear fuel.
SDI 2008 155 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Reprocessing
Reprocessing wourd spur the nuclear energy.
EnergyWashington Week, July 2, 2008, Newsroom Notes, Lexis VF
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking Republican on the Senate energy committee, has introduced legislation
that he and his co-sponsors hope will jump-start nuclear waste recycling in the United States, thereby clearing
the way for an expansion of nuclear power, which Domenici says is "the only way for America to meet our
increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." The new bill,
"Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act (S.3215)-- introduced along with
Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL.), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) -- seeks to promote the
establishment of privately owned and operated facilities for the storage an recycling of used nuclear fuel.
Under the proposal, Congress would establish a new competitive 50-50 cost share program between DOE and
private industry to finance up to two spent fuel recycling facilities--from engineering and design work
through the development of license applications. Domenici is certain that a nuclear renaissance is underway -- as
does the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which issued a report on the issue--and believes S. 3215 will help it
along. Co-sponsor Sessions has this to say about the bill: "Nuclear recycling will help us permanently and safely
dispose of spent fuel while simultaneously increasing the amount of nuclear material available to generate
base load power. In the past, the issue of waste disposal has provided an argument to object to expanding
nuclear power, and I'm hopeful this legislation will jump-start recycling in America -- leading to more clean,
reliable nuclear power here at home. It is time the United States caught up with other nations that have
demonstrated that recycling can be conducted in a safe and cost-efficient way." Nuclear renaissance or not,
Domenici and his co-sponsors can expect an uphill struggle. Just two days ago, the House Appropriations
Committee approved legislation to fund DOE for fiscal year 2009 that includes eliminating spending on the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration's signature nuclear power initiative to reprocess spent
nuclear fuel, as we reported.
SDI 2008 156 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Capsules containing Nuclear Waste can either be sent to the Sun to be destroyed or to
Venus to possibly retrieve back later
Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of
technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”,
RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1.
Where should the nuclear waste ultimately go? Sending the capsules out of the solar system is the simplest
option because the laser can directly launch the capsule on its way. Both Ivan Bekey, the former
director of NASA’s of Advanced Programs in the Office of Spaceflight, and Dr. Jordin T. Kare, the
former technical director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization’s Laser Propulsion Program,
which ran from 1987-90, emphasized solar escape is the most reliable choice because less could go
wrong. A second option, a solar orbit inside Venus, would retain the option of retrieving the capsules.
Future generations might actually find our radioactive wastes valuable, just as old mine tailings are a
useful source of precious metals today. After all, the spent fuel still contains over three-quarters of the
original fuel and could be reprocessed. Terrorists or rogue states might be able to reach these capsules, but if
they have that technical capability, stealing nuclear wastes will be among the least of our concerns. This
approach is more complex, demanding a temporary earth orbit and a solar sail to move it into a solar orbit,
thus increasing the possibility of something going wrong.
SDI 2008 158 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Launching storage in Space is safe; there is no risk of explosion and since the bullet shaped
capsules ballistic characteristics are known, trajectories can be pre-calculated in failure.
Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of
technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”,
RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1.
Assuring safety is possible. The two major concerns are launching the capsule and ensuring the
integrity of the capsule. Laser launching is safer and more reliable than rockets. The absence of rocket
propellants and its accompanying propulsion systems eliminates the possibility of an explosion. The
major problem would be if the laser failed before the capsule reached escape velocity. Because the capsule
will be bullet-shaped, its ballistic characteristics are well known. Thus, if a launch failure occurred, the
capsule would land only in known recovery zones. Launch trajectories would be designed to avoid
populated areas.
Excessive launch tests can be made with inert capsules; rocket launches of waste cannot
solve this.
Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of
technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”,
RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1.
One advantage of a laser launch system is that the safe return from these aborted missions can be
demonstrated by testing with inert capsules. Scores of launches could test every conceivable scenario,
the equivalent of firing a new rifle to understand all its characteristics. This could not be done with a
rocket. If another layer of safety is desired, placing the launch system on an island in the Pacific Ocean
will further decrease the chance of an aborted flight landing in a populated area. Such isolation would
also improve security.
A2: Capsule won’t solve – Current technology and knowledge ensures it; Remember
nuclear warheads?
Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of
technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”,
RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1.
The integrity of a capsule can be demonstrated too. The aerospace industry has accumulated decades
of research and experience on how to contain radioactive material in containers that can maintain
their integrity despite atmospheric re-entry, accidents, explosions, and other potential catastrophes.
They are called nuclear warheads. Designing containers for space disposal is well within the state of the
art. Dr. Rowland E. Burns, the engineer who led a NASA study in the mid-1970s on this issue, stated it is
feasible to design and construct containers that can safely withstand the demands of even a
catastrophic explosion, claiming, “I won’t say you would have to nuke the container to break it, but it
would take something like that.”
SDI 2008 159 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
A2: Cost inefficient – Once a launch center is built, costs will plummet
Jonathon Coopersmith, Associate professor of history at Texas A&M University, where he teaches the history of
technology, including the history of space exploration, 8-22-2005, The Space Review, “Nuclear waste in space?”,
RKS, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1.
Space disposal may prove a similar opportunity. Once a ground launcher is developed and built,
constructing additional launchers will be far less costly and risky. The dream of affordable access to
space may then come true, opening up the final frontier in ways that we have not dreamed of since the
1960s. As important, we will be acting ethically, providing our children a safer earth and inexpensive
access to space for people as well as plutonium.
Loan Guarantees
Incentives solve costs
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not
permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a
way to reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to
remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as
some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like
an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going.
SDI 2008 161 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
New Technology breakthroughs solve nuclear proliferation and have built in safety features that
prevent meltdowns.
Reinhoudt, research assistant at AEI Aug 17. 2007 KP
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26672,filter.all/pub_detail.asp.
Martin embraces solar and wind energy as alternative sources of energy, but is more enthusiastic about
the potential of new nuclear technology for large-scale electricity generation. Pebble-bed
reactors are a product of so-called "fourth generation" nuclear technology: pebble-bed
reactors shut down automatically by virtue of their design if the temperature gets too hot so there is no
risk of a meltdown. Unlike the uranium used by today's nuclear power plants, the uranium used by
pebble-bed reactors is only 9% enriched, making it extremely difficult to divert for nuclear weapon use ,
reducing proliferation. Unlike the waste produced by today's nuclear power plants, the waste
of pebble bed reactors (small balls with hard silicon-carbide shells) can be easily stored.
Pebble-bed reactors are also smaller and far more affordable than conventional reactors,
making them useful for developing nations. South Africa is set to export such reactors in just a few years, and
China is set to build many of them in its quest to reduce energy dependence.
SDI 2008 162 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
SHARED NEGATIVE
SDI 2008 165 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Inherency takeouts
There are incentives to increase nuclear power now.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 5-4-2007, “Domenici Praises
Focus on Nuclear Energy in UN Climate Change Report”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=4aba31cb-f46a-
4392-9cc5-043d05f6c0f1, CM
The Energy Policy Act provided loan guarantee authority, production tax credits, and insurance
protection against licensing delays and litigation for nuclear power projects. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission recently issued the first series of Early Site Permits for projects in the Department of
Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program. NP2010 is a joint government/industry cost sharing effort to
identify sites for new nuclear plants, development and bring to market advanced nuclear plant
technologies, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes.
Nuclear Energy reform has already occurred- Energy Policy Act of 2005 Solves the case
AEI (American Enterprise Institute) October 6, 2006
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1394,filter.economic/transcript.asp KP
We recently had what I would describe as a very supportive set of policies for the nuclear industry that
was enacted last year, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We have generous tax credits, loan guarantees
and risk protection to encourage construction of new plants, extension of the Price-Anderson Act,
funding for nuclear energy R&D, standby support for new reactor delays if it is not the utility’s fault.
Tax treatment of decommissioning funds has become more usable for plants operating at a competitive
environment and funding and support for personnel and training. We have licensing reform.
Nuclear Power has gotten 20 billion in subsidies the last two years.
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because
of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government
says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by
2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of
nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of
taxpayer energy subsidies-a total of $20 billion-to atomic power
SDI 2008 166 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Solvency takeouts
Fast expansion of nuclear power is bad – it can’t solve anyway and trying to rush it will
just exacerbate safety problems.
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 2 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html KP
Nuclear energy is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in countering the harmful effects
of climate change or in strengthening energy security, concludes a new Council Special Report authored
by Charles D. Ferguson, Council fellow for science and technology. To significantly combat climate
change in the near term, the “nuclear industry would have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose
serious concerns for how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably inexpensive
reactor-grade construction materials, well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety and security
measures,” says the report. There are currently 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States.
Even with twenty-year extensions of their planned lifespan, all existing reactors will likely need to be
decommissioned by the middle of the century. To replace them, the United States would have to build a
new reactor every four to five months over the next forty years. “However, based on the past thirty
years, in which reactor orders and construction ground to a halt, this replacement rate faces daunting
challenges. For this reason alone, nuclear energy is not a major part of the solution to U.S. energy
insecurity for at least the next fifty years,” says the report, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks.
This turns the case if there is another accident it will cause worldwide antinuclear
backlash. ***double turn alert – if you say np bad don’t read this***
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile
Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't
adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to
expand don't have a strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about
safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst
performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash
among the public and investors.
People will not use nuclear energy, even if there are incentives.
Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research
Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate
Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM
In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm,
commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations --
termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include
the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear
accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs;
federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at
taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful
interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince
investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear
generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the
marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder
from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before.
SDI 2008 167 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Yucca isn’t big enough – if nuclear power increases the U.S. will need several new
repositories.
Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energy-
partnership/?searchterm=legislate
Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is eventually opened, the current legal limit for the repository is
insufficient for the total projected waste output of the current cohort of reactors operating in the US, although
the GNEP reprocessing and transmutation plans aim to partly address this problem. Steve Kidd (2006) from the
World Nuclear Association states: "The difficulties encountered with establishing Yucca as an operating repository
have undoubtedly influenced the move towards GNEP. The likelihood of having to establish several Yuccas in the
USA alone, if there is a significant boom in nuclear power in the 21st century, has obviously concentrated a lot
of official thinking."
Yucca doesn’t have enough space to fill current nuclear waste of the US
Chris Gardner, 7-8-2008, “10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy”, rks,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html.
There is currently nowhere to store the radioactive nuclear waste that is a byproduct of nuclear energy generation. In
the unlikely event that Yucca Mountain is opened to nuclear waste, the repository will not be large enough to
store even current waste. Proponents of nuclear power note that nuclear waste can be reprocessed, although this
would not actually reduce the waste problem, and would add 1.5 to 3 cents to the cost per kilowatt-hour of
electricity.
SDI 2008 170 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Mining uranium, transporting nuclear waste, and building Nuclear facilities are all
HUGELY carbon intensive- This acts as a direct turn to your Global Warming Adv.
Mark Diesendorf, University of New South Wales. He is co-editor with Clive Hamilton of the interdisciplinary
book, “Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future”, and co-author of the
national scenario study, “A Clean Energy Future for Australia”. & Peter Christoff is the co-coordinator of
Environmental Studies at the School of Social and Environmental Enquiry at the University of Melbourne. He
lectures on climate politics and policy in the University’s Centre for Public Policy, and has published widely on
Australian and international environmental policy. November 2006 energyscience.org.au
The recent push for a revival of nuclear energy has been based on its claimed reduction of CO2
emissions where it substitutes for coal-fired power stations. In reality, only reactor operation is CO2-
free. All other stages of the nuclear fuel chain – mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor
construction, decommissioning and waste management – use fossil fuels and hence emit CO2. Also the
transport between these parts of the fuel cycle can be very energy intensive as they can be in different
countries and require shipping, trucking or rail. These emissions have been quantified by researchers who
are independent of the nuclear industry. Early work was published by Nigel Mortimer, until recently Head of
the Resources Research Unit at Shefield Hallam University, UK. In the 2000s a very detailed study was done
by Jan Willem Storm Van Leeuwen, a senior consultant in energy systems, together with Philip Smith, a
nuclear physicist, both of whom are based in Holland. These studies find that the CO2 emissions depend
sensitively on the grade of uranium ore used. Following Van Leeuwen and Smith, we define high-grade
uranium ores to be those with at least 0.1% uranium oxide (yellowcake U3O8). In simpler terms, for each
tonne of ore mined and milled, at least 1 kg of uranium can be extracted. For high-grade ores, such as most of
those currently being mined in Australia, the energy inputs from uranium mining and milling are relatively
small. However, there are significant emissions from the construction and decommissioning of the nuclear
power station, with the result that the station must operate for 2-3 years to generate these energy inputs. (For
comparison, wind power requires only 3-7 months.)Low-grade uranium ores contain less than 0.01%
yellowcake, i.e. they are at least 10 times less concentrated than the high-grade ores. To obtain 1 kg of
yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of low-grade ore has to be mined. This entails a huge increase in the fossil
energy required for mining and milling. Van Leeuwen and Smith find that the fossil energy consumption for
these steps in the nuclear fuel chain becomes so large that nuclear energy emits total quantities of CO2
that are comparable with those from an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired power station.
Furthermore, the quantity of known uranium reserves, with ore grades richer than the critical level of 0.01%,
is very limited. The vast majority of the world’s known uranium resources are low-grade. With the
current contribution by nuclear energy of 16% of the world’s electricity production, the high-grade reserves
would only last several decades. If nuclear energy were to be expanded to contribute (say) half of the world’s
electricity, high-grade reserves would last less than a decade. No doubt more reserves of high-grade uranium
ore will be discovered, perhaps even doubling current reserves, but this would be insufficient for a
sustainable substitute for coal. Recently a physicist, Martin Sevior has produced a critique of Van Leeuwen
and Smith’s results. Sevior’s results for high-grade uranium ore are based on the unpublished data from the
Swedish electricity utility, Vattenfall. Unpublished sources have low scientific credibility. The actual results
are unbelievable: for instance, based on these data, Sevior claims that the energy inputs to the construction of
a nuclear power station are generated in only 1.5 months of its operation. This extraordinarily low result is
contradicted by several earlier studies by independent analysts, who find that the energy payback period for
the construction of both nuclear and coal fired power stations (which use similar types and quantities of
construction materials) is several years. There can be no doubt that, if uranium ore grade declines by a
factor of 10, then energy inputs to mining and milling must increase by at least a factor of 10. As ore
grade decreases, there has to be grade at which the CO2 emissions from mining and milling become
unacceptably high. However, the exact value of this critical ore grade is still subject to continuing scientific
debate. Are there alternative future pathways for nuclear energy that could have lower CO2 emissions?
Although there are vast quantities of uranium oxide in the Earth’s crust, almost all exist at very low
concentrations, typically 4 x 10-4 %, at which 1000 tonnes of ore would have to be mined to obtain 4 kg of
uranium in the form of yellowcake. In this case the energy inputs to extract uranium would be much
greater than the energy outputs of the nuclear power station. Sea-water contains uranium at a
concentration of about 2 x 10-7 %, meaning that 1 million tonnes of sea-water would have to be processed to
extract just 2 kg of uranium.
SDI 2008 171 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Meanwhile uranium mining is making a comeback after a two-decade slump, but obstacles such as
infrastructure problems, stable access to enrichment services, and environmental concerns continue to dog
the industry. Discerning Supply and Demand Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known
to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply),
followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less
than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each. In a 2006
background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of
uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall
processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then,
when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the
country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06
percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial,
research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning
stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about
seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of
efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear
reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts
say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel. Market Forces
The uranium market experienced significant declines through the 1980s and 1990s because of the end of the Cold
War arms race as well as a cessation in construction of new nuclear plants. Disarmament of nuclear-weapons
stockpiles added surplus weapons-grade uranium to the market leading to a price drop as low as seven dollars a
pound. Much of the fuel currently powering U.S. reactors, for instance, was meant for the United States in a very
different way—sitting in warheads atop Soviet ballistic missiles. According to a Brinkley mining report (PDF),
by 2000 the uranium industry had made no significant uranium discoveries in a decade and only supplied
about half of global demand. A series of events, including reductions in available weapons-grade uranium, a
fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, significant flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine and the need for fuel
at power plants that extended their licenses, caused significant increases in uranium prices in the last few
years. Recent prices have been as high as $138 a pound. However, analysts say the uranium market also can be
difficult to predict because many transactions are not transparent. Some experts worry that the lagging uranium
industry, in need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrades, will cause delays in the expansion of
nuclear power. “Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge
from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them,” says
Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Currently, there are nearly one
thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over
seventy are in planning stages. India, which is locked out of the world uranium market because of its nuclear
weapons program, has shut down five of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The controversial
nuclear deal with the United States would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but is now imperiled by
domestic opposition in India. Uranium Mining More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from
Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium
in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium
mining in the country. Recent increases in uranium demand have sparked debate in Australia, pitting the mining
industry and nuclear advocates against environmentalists and activists for indigenous land rights. Other
impediments to increases in mining in Australia and elsewhere include the need for infrastructure,
environmental concerns, and a lack of experienced workers.
SDI 2008 172 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Current uranium can’t supply the worlds demand for electricity for the long term.
Peter Bunyard, senior scientist at Cambridge University and is on the independent science
panel, 06, Taking The Wind Out Of Nuclear Energy,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00155.htm#a, ASH
Current uranium reserves, according to 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association, are about 3.5 million
tonnes, enough to last 50 years but only at present consumption rates. If large numbers of nuclear reactors
were to be built to satisfy our ever-increasing demand for electricity, reserves of high-grade ore would be
rapidly exhausted, leaving huge quantities of low-grade ores most of which would cost more energy to utilise than it
would deliver in electricity. Even if useful uranium resources were found to be much larger than now estimated, it
would only satisfy global demand for several decades and then the world would be left with huge quantities of
radioactive waste with no source of energy to sequester it safely. According to detailed research published this year
(2005), if all the world’s electricity, currently 55 exajoules (1018 joules) or 15,000 terawatt(1012 watts)-hours,
could be generated by nuclear reactors, the world’s known uranium reserves would last only 3.5 years, if full
dismantling costs of nuclear plants are included.
SDI 2008 173 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear Power is not viable-more expensive and time consuming than other renewables
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because
of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the
government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S.
electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity,
at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration
has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies-a total of $20 billion-to atomic power
SDI 2008 174 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Brownouts/Blackouts
Nuclear power is limited and cannot meet the demand – the reasons it works in the EU
don’t apply to the U.S.
Lawrence Solomon, May 13, 2008 Financial Post LC
Nuclear reactors cannot possibly meet 80% of America's power needs -- or those of any country whose
power market dominates its region -- because of limitations in nuclear technology. McCain needs to find
another miracle energy solution, or abandon his vow to drastically cut back carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike
other forms of power generation, nuclear reactors are designed to run flat-out, 24/7 -- they can't crank up
their output at times of high demand or ease up when demand slows. This limitation generally consigns
nuclear power to meeting a power system's minimum power needs -- the amount of power needed in
the dead of night, when most industry and most people are asleep, and the value of power is low. At
other times of the day and night, when power demands rise and the price of power is high, society calls on
the more flexible forms of generation -- coal, gas, oil and hydro-electricity among them -- to meet its
additional higher-value needs. If a country produces more nuclear power than it needs in the dead of
night, it must export that low-value, off-peak power. This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus
to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people. That large market --more than 10
times France's population -- is able to soak up most of France's surplus off-peak power. The U. S. is not
surrounded, as is France, by far more populous neighbours. Just the opposite: The U.S. dominates the North
American market. If 80% of U. S. needs were met by nuclear reactors, as Senator McCain desires,
America's off-peak surplus would have no market, even if the power were given away. Countries highly
reliant on nuclear power, in effect, are in turn reliant on having large non-nuclear-reliant countries as
neighbours. If France's neighbours had power systems dominated by nuclear power, they too would be
trying to export off-peak power and France would have no one to whom it could offload its surplus power. In
fact, even with the mammoth EU market to tap into, France must shut down some of its reactors some
weekends because no one can use its surplus. In effect, France can't even give the stuff away. But McCain
does not know France well enough to know why nuclear power's negative record over there says
nothing positive about what it can do for people over here, on this side of the Atlantic.
SDI 2008 176 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Coal
We would need hundreds of reactors to reduce our reliance on coal.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest)
LeRoy Moore, one of the founders of Houlder, Colo's Kocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and a lay
expert on nuclear issues, says there are many reasons why the United States shouldn't shift its effort
toward nuclear energy, starting with cost. It takes at least 15 years and $10 to $16 billion-conservative
estimates-to build a single two-reactor nuclear power plant. The United States currently has 104 nuclear
power plants that generate about 20 percent of the nation's electrical power. At the moment, there are
plans by the nuclear-power industry to build at least 28 additional reactors in the United States at 19
sites around the country. But for the United States to replace coal-burning power plants with nuclear
power would require the construction of not dozens, but hundreds more nuclear reactors.
SDI 2008 177 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Competitiveness
Nuclear Power plants are expensive, we would need hundreds to reduce our reliance on
coal and it would take 15 years just to build one.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, Proquest)
LeRoy Moore, one of the founders of Houlder, Colo's Kocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and a lay
expert on nuclear issues, says there are many reasons why the United States shouldn't shift its effort
toward nuclear energy, starting with cost. It takes at least 15 years and $10 to $16 billion-conservative
estimates-to build a single two-reactor nuclear power plant. The United States currently has 104 nuclear
power plants that generate about 20 percent of the nation's electrical power. At the moment, there are
plans by the nuclear-power industry to build at least 28 additional reactors in the United States at 19 sites
around the country. But for the United States to replace coal-burning power plants with nuclear power would
require the construction of not dozens, but hundreds more nuclear reactors. "We would have to have a new
reactor opening every few months for 30 years," Moore says. "If you calculate the cost of that, it would
be a trillion dollars to construct the things. If this could actually be accomplished in 30 to 40 years-and I
think it's totally unrealistic-you'd have to start over, because most of the reactors would be ending their
period of useful life."
Global supply chain doesn’t allow massive expansion of nuclear power sufficient to reduce
the economic impacts and reduce CO2.
Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2008, Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact,
nna
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm
Even under today's conditions, bottlenecks emerge within the global supply chain for items such as
heavy forgings, piping, skilled labor, and manufacturing. While building enough nuclear power plants
to minimize the economic impacts of CO2 caps may be desirable, the reality is that the global
industrial base could not support such a project in the U.S., much less the rest of the world. Thus, the
amount of nuclear power required to sustain the optimistic Lieberman–Warner economic projections
is impossible to achieve within the timeframes that they would require. This is especially true as the U.S.
has yet to resolve many issues that continue to face the nuclear industry. Using such optimistic nuclear
projections to support an analysis with minimal economic consequences of S. 3036 is therefore
completely unrealistic.
SDI 2008 178 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Dependency
Nuclear power is bad-expensive, high emissions, unsustainable, and creates foreign
dependency
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
From an economic perspective, atomic power is inefficient at addressing climate change because
dollars used for more expensive, higher-emissions nuclear energy cannot be used for cheaper, lower-
emissions renewable energy. Atomic power is also not sustainable. Because of dwindling uranium
supplies, by the year 2050 reactors would be forced to use low-grade uranium ore whose greenhouse
emissions would roughly equal those of natural gas. Besides, because the United States imports nearly
all its uranium, pursuing nuclear power continues the dangerous pattern of dependency on foreign
sources to meet domestic energy needs.
SDI 2008 179 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear energy will tradeoff with other forms of effective alternative energy and cause
more greenhouse gasses to accumulate
Mycle Schneider(international consultant on energy and nuclear), Lutz Mez (executive director of FFU), and
Steve Thomas (researcher at the Public Service International Research Unit) 2006. Canberra Times, July 27,
2k6.” Why nuclear power is not the global cure-all” Lexis VF
This decline will not be prevented even if some major plans for additional capacity become reality.
Unfortunately, the current focus on nuclear may prevent societies from massively investing in energy
conservation and efficiency and might actually constitute a significant barrier to the implementation of
necessary and urgent greenhouse gas abatement strategies.
Nuclear power is too small to make an impact in carbon dioxide emissions-1150 plants by
2058
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
In fact, the sheer number of nuclear plants needed to make a major dent in greenhouse emissions
means the industry hasn't a prayer of turning nuclear power into the solution to global warming. One
study from last year determined that to make a significant contribution toward stabilizing atmospheric
carbon dioxide, about 21 new 1,000- megawatt plants would have to be built each year for the next 50
years, including those needed to replace existing reactors, all of which are expected to be retired by
2050. That's considerably more than the most ambitious industry growth projections.
Money spent on nuclear energy could be better used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
The cost issue alone will mean that few if any new nuclear power stations will get built in the next few
years, at least in the U.S., and any that do will require expensive taxpayer subsidies. Instead of
subsidizing the development of new plants that have all these other problems, the U.S. would be better
off investing in other ways to meet growing energy demands and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
Nuclear Energy isn’t carbon free when you account for the full fuel cycle.
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
The myth of clean atomic power arises partly because some sources, like a pro-nuclear energy analysis
published in 2003 by several professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, call atomic power a
"carbon-free source" of energy. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of
nuclear energy, calls atomic power "emissions free." At best, these claims are half-truths because they "trim
the data" on emissions. While nuclear reactors themselves do not release greenhouse gases, reactors are
only part of the nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle. This cycle includes mining uranium ore, milling it to
extract uranium, converting the uranium to gas, enriching it, fabricating fuel pellets, generating power,
reprocessing spent fuel, storing spent fuel at the reactor and transporting the waste to a permanent
storage facility. Because most of these nine stages are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear power thus
generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that is
produced. (To provide uniform calculations of greenhouse emissions, the various effects of the different
greenhouse gases typically are converted to carbon-equivalent emissions.) Per kilowatt-hour, atomic
energy produces only one-seventh the greenhouse emissions of coal, but twice as much as wind and
slightly more than solar panels.
SDI 2008 181 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan Economy is high now
Novosti 15/ 06/ 2007
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070615/67276895.html
Kazakhstan's GDP will increase 10% year-on-year in 2007 to $100 billion, the president of the oil-rich
Central Asian republic said Friday. Speaking at a meeting of the country's Foreign Investors' Council,
Nursultan Nazarbayev said: "In 15 years of independence, we have proved that Kazakhstan is a state with a
dynamically developing economy. Kazakhstan's gross domestic product is growing by around 10%
each year, and according to expert estimates, this trend will persist in the future." The Kazakh
president said the ex-Soviet nation had set a goal of achieving a GDP figure of $300 billion by 2015.
According to Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's GDP climbed 10.6% in 2006 to $80.5 billion and exceeded $5,000
per capita. At the same time, the Kazakh president said he was dissatisfied with the level of revenue earned
by domestic companies from the transit of goods. According to Nazarbayev, revenue of Kazakhstan's
transport companies has remained at an annual level of $500 million per year, or just 1% of the market for
transit carriages between Europe and Asia. "This is evidence that the existing infrastructure is failing to meet
the requirements of the growing economy, even despite the fact that budget spending on infrastructure
development is rising considerably every year," Nazarbayev said. The president said that Kazakhstan as a
transit country was interested in building trans-continental transport and communication corridors and large
transport and logistic centers to turn the republic into a major link between the West and the East.
SDI 2008 182 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
AT ADV Proliferation
Fast expansion of nuclear power will undermine the anti-proliferation system.
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
Nuclear Energy causes proliferation By far the greatest risk is the possibility that an expansion of
nuclear power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants that enrich uranium for
power plants can also be used to enrich for bombs; this is the path Iran is suspected of taking in
developing a weapons program. An ambitious expansion of nuclear power would require a lot more
facilities for enriching uranium, broadening this risk. Facilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for
reuse pose the danger that the material can be diverted for weapons. Expansion of nuclear power in the
U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk, but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current anti-
proliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to be in countries -- such as those in
the Middle East and Africa -- where a nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious
weapons development and create the local expertise in handling and processing nuclear materials.
U.S. Nuclear leadership can’t stop proliferation – the countries that we are most likely to
help want nuclear energy so they can counter Iranian proliferation.
Daniel Horner, 7-16-07, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bc
Sokolski, who was a nonproliferation official in the George H.W. Bush administration, has criticized that
approach (NF, 21 May, 3). Sokolski also took issue with the section of the document in which Bush and
Putin declare that they "are determined to play an active role in making the advantages of the peaceful
use of nuclear energy available to a wide range of interested states, in particular developing countries,
provided the common goal of prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons is achieved." Sokolski
questioned how "peaceful" large reactors would be in "the places where we're pushing them." Part of
the reason countries such as Egypt and Turkey are interested in having nuclear programs is to give
themselves the capability to counter the developing Iranian nuclear weapons program, he said.
B. Violation – the plan is an incentive for nuclear power not for an alternative energy.
1. Limits - their interpretation explodes the topic – there are a huge number of incentive mechanisms which means
reducing what we define as “alternative energy” is the only way the negative can effectively prepare.
2. Predictability – our definition is based on U.S. code, it’s how the federal government defines it which is the most
predictable on a topic about federal government policy.
SDI 2008 187 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Nuclear power can’t succeed without key parts which are hard to get and are expensive.
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
Part of the reason for the rising cost estimates is the small number of vendors able to supply critical
reactor components, as well as a shortage of engineering and construction skills in the nuclear
industry. Perhaps the biggest bottleneck is in the huge reactor vessels that contain a plant's radioactive
core. Only one plant in the world is capable of forging the huge vessels in a single piece, and it can
produce only a handful of the forgings a year. Though the plant intends to expand capacity in the next
couple of years, and China has said it plans to begin making the forgings, this key component is
expected to limit development for many years.
SDI 2008 189 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
With federal government spending through the roof and projected deficits setting new records every day, it is
perhaps surprising that the Bush administration and Congress want to use billions of taxpayer dollars to single-
handedly resurrect the moribund nuclear industry. Old habits, however, die hard. The federal government has
always maintained a unique public-private partnership with the nuclear industry, wherein the costs of nuclear
power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. In an attempt to resuscitate this dying
industry, the current Senate energy bill proposes unprecedented federal support for nuclear power. Despite
extensive and continuous government assistance -- including more than $66 billion in research and
development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973. After
building more than a hundred plants between 1954-1973, orders have been cancelled over the last thirty years,
and capacity in the industry has stagnated since 1989. The decline of nuclear power is a result of several
factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of
plants in their neighborhoods grew. But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it
simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists
purely as a creature of government.
Nuclear energy will not solve alternative energy concerns. It is on the decline.
Mycle Schneider(international consultant on energy and nuclear), Lutz Mez (executive director of FFU), and
Steve Thomas (researcher at the Public Service International Research Unit) 2006. Canberra Times, July
27, 2k6.” Why nuclear power is not the global cure-all” Lexis VF
NUCLEAR power is back on the agenda. Media attention is remarkable. The G8 Summit has just made it an
issue. But what is behind the "nuclear revival"? Surprisingly little, so far, as a brief analysis reveals. Today
worldwide there are 442 operating nuclear reactors. Only 19 more than in 1989 and two less than in 2002,
they represent an installed capacity of 370,000MW. Nuclear power plants provide 16 per cent of the world's
commercial electricity (and not "16 per cent of the world's energy" as Greg Hunt, parliamentary secretary to
the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who should know better, wrote in The Australian on July 17).
This represents the same 6 per cent share in commercial primary energy as hydropower, which equally covers
about 2 per cent of final energy in the world. In the European Union nuclear power has declined steadily
since 1989, when the number of operating units reached an historic high with 172. There are now 147
reactors operating - 25 units less than 17 years ago. There are 31 countries with nuclear power plants, but
the big six alone - the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia and South Korea - produce
three-quarters of the world's nuclear electricity. Even in these countries the role of nuclear power in
the overall energy supply is limited. France, the "most nuclear" country, generates 78 per cent of its
electricity (not of its energy, as Greg Hunt wrote) with nuclear power, yet this still only provides 17.5 per
cent of its final energy. Like most other countries, France is highly dependent on fossil fuels, which provide
more than 70 per cent of final energy consumption. In the other big five countries the nuclear contribution
is not more than 7 per cent of their final energy and in the US and Russia it is less than 4 per cent. Globally
the International Atomic Energy Agency lists 27 reactors as "under construction". However, 11 of these have
been "listed" for between 18 to 30 years. The Indian expansion program is essentially limited to small
domestic-type reactors and there is little prospect that nuclear power will provide significantly more than the
current 2 per cent of its electricity any time in the near future. And China? The country will have a maximum
of 10,000MW installed by 2010, again providing less than 2 per cent of the country's electricity. As to figures
of up to 40,000MW by 2020, they are nothing more than wild speculation with little industrial credibility.
Lead times for nuclear plants - the time from final investment decisions to grid connection - are about
10 years. Many projects experience extreme delays. The last nuclear reactor to be built in the US was
under construction for more than 23 years before it was finally connected to the grid in 1996. France
has decided to build a new plant, but the main reason is fear of a competence gap. It is 15 years since the
French began construction of a reactor. Interest in nuclear related technical and higher education options are
decreasing. The effect is not as dramatic as in a country like Germany, where in five years only two students
took a full nuclear option, but it is there. Maintaining competence has become a major issue. Finland is also
building a new reactor, the first one to be ordered in the European Union outside France, since the 1980s.
After one year of construction, the project is already delayed by about a year. Finland has had the highest
electricity consumption growth rate in the European Union, mainly because of pricing policy and the large-
scale introduction of space heating. The country doubled per-capita consumption over the past 20 years to
reach a level 60 per cent higher than Australia. Existing nuclear power plants are aging rapidly. The current
average age of operating reactors is roughly 22 years. Experience with longer operating times is limited.
Industry expectations of 40 years on average seem highly optimistic. That aside, about 80 reactors will
be 40 or older by 2015. An additional 200 units will be 40 by 2025. So even if it was possible to double
the current average operating age of all reactors, their replacement at age 40 would mean a need to
connect a unit to the grid every 45 days until 2015 and one every 18 days between 2015 and 2025!
Considering the long lead times of nuclear power plants such a scheme is impossible. In other words,
either the average age of operating plants must be significantly extended beyond 40 years, or the number of
operating units will decline. We expect the latter, a slow but steady decline, where new units don't make up
for the ones that are shut down. In conclusion, nuclear power plays a modest role in the international
energy situation. In sharp contradiction to numerous reports and media "hype", the number of
nuclear power reactors in the world is very likely to decline.
SDI 2008 193 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DA Politics – Uniqueness
Washington won’t take any major action on the energy crisis – any proposals will be small.
Jessica Mancari ’08 (June 24th, Sen. Forbes Assistant, The Wall Street Journal, “Rep. Forbes ‘New Manhattan
Project’ featured in Wall Street Journal”, AB, Proquest)
Here, then, is the real energy shortage in America. The stunning part of Washington's reaction to $4-a-
gallon gasoline is that there has been so little reaction at all. This is as close as the country has been to a
genuine energy crisis in 30 years, yet there has been no unifying cry to mount the ramparts as a nation,
to rally together to rid America of the curse of oil addiction, to rise to this challenge as America has to
others in its history. INSTEAD, the energy "debate" that has emerged is mostly a lame repeat of 20-
year-old arguments over the virtues of offshore oil drilling and a series of congressional hearings on the
role speculators have in driving up the price of oil that have nothing to do with actually increasing the
production of energy. As presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama are at least
trying to rally the country - Sen. McCain by devoting virtually two whole weeks of his campaign to the topic
- but the effort has served mostly to highlight their differences. There are several possible explanations for
this meekness in the face of challenge, but the most likely, and the most distressing, is this: America and its
political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith
in their ability to do so. A political system that expects failure doesn't try very hard to produce anything else.
If you wonder why voters have made "change" the catchword of this campaign year, that's a pretty good
explanation. This timidity in the face of challenge troubles Rep. Forbes. "Maybe one of the reasons we've
developed some of the mediocrity we have is that we aren't thinking bigger," he says. "I really hope for once
we can lay aside the partisan bickering, and we can lay aside the posturing." THE PROBLEM, of course, is
that there is little sign that Washington, in its current state of gridlock and partisan paralysis, is
capable of doing that. When President Bill Clinton tried to overhaul the health-care system, he
couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a Congress his party controlled. When President
George W. Bush tried to revamp Social Security, he couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a
Congress his party controlled. Last year's effort to overhaul the U.S.'s deeply flawed immigration
system collapsed what once looked like a rare bipartisan success. President Bush's "No Child Left
Behind" education program has become a partisan football. An energy bill that passed after much effort
earlier in this Congress now seems limp when compared with the threat that energy prices suddenly pose to
the American economy. Washington, in short, has no recent track record in solving big problems. That
hardly means the only route for such solutions is big-government programs. Rep. Forbes, for example, is
hardly a wild-eyed liberal proposing a bureaucratic solution on energy. He's a conservative Republican who
in 2006 won a 100% rating from the Chamber of Commerce for his voting record. He doesn't argue that
government can or should solve the problem for Americans watching in horror as the dollars add up at the
gas pump. "Government won't do it for them," he says. "Government can't. But we're saying we can lay the
challenge out for the American people.
SDI 2008 194 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Although there has been a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more
nuclear power - it is clean and far safer than at the time of the nuclear accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island,
in Pennsylvania - most environmentalists are skeptical of the most recent claims by advocates of nuclear
energy. They also say that no utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the U.S.
government lavishly subsidizes it. ''Wall Street won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive
and unreliable,'' said Daniel Weiss, who heads the global warming program at the Center for American
Progress Action Fund, a liberal research group. ''So Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry
with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts.''
Yucca mountain is a key issue for Nevada voters – they oppose it strongly
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nov. 28, 2007, “Poll finds Nevada voters strongly oppose Yucca, Survey shows
76 percent are against nuclear waste project”, JaretLK, http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html ellipses in original
RENO -- Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to federal plans to store the nation's nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain, according to a statewide poll published Tuesday. The survey of 600 likely
Nevada voters conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57
percent say the issue will be important in making their choice for president. The survey also found that
opposition to the project crosses party lines, but Democrats think it's a more important issue in the
presidential election than Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said the issue is important
to them in the presidential race, compared with 38 percent of Republicans. The poll was conducted
Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4 percent. "From a national
perspective, any campaign that wants to win the hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared
to talk about long-term radioactive storage," said GOP strategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. "These numbers
will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the waste." Yucca Mountain has gained more
attention from presidential candidates since Nevada moved up its presidential caucuses to Jan. 19,
following Iowa on Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. Nevada's congressional delegation is
adamantly opposed to the project. Congress in 2002 picked the Yucca Mountain site about 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel. Political analysts said the issue's
importance in presidential elections has been questionable. They cite President Bush's ability to carry Nevada
in 2004, despite his support of the Yucca Mountain site. "Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for them
from one candidate to another," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno. "Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue. There is no nuance allowed. ... Republicans,
even those who are opposed to Yucca Mountain, are not as adamant as are the Democrats," he said.
Every Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, but Rep. Ron Paul is the
only Republican candidate to come out strongly against it. The Department of Energy is preparing a license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the project.
SDI 2008 200 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
The link is better than the turn – people want a better energy policy but once you get
specific support goes down.
Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, 11-14-07, The Boston Globe, For candidates roving US, energy stance is fraught
with risks - Region to region, priorities conflict, lexis, bc ellipses in original
John Edwards voted for making Nevada's Yucca Mountain a nuclear waste repository, but now he opposes it.
Bill Richardson allowed the Yucca project to proceed when he was Bill Clinton's energy secretary, but now
says he opposes it as a waste dump. Hillary Clinton several times voted against bills expanding the amount of
ethanol required in gasoline, but now wants the government to help pay for the biofuel that is so important to
Iowans. Energy policy, presidential candidates in both parties agree, is a critical national priority. But the
regional special interests involved in energy use, production, and waste disposal have created political
problems for the presidential contenders as they woo voters across the country. "Democrats and
Republicans are generally saying the same thing about energy policy, that global warming is an issue
and we need to be energy-independent," said Frank Maisano, a veteran lobbyist for the energy industry.
"Once you start talking about specifics ... that's where people get gun-shy. That's why we don't get
much substance on energy in presidential races."
Stumping at a town hall meeting in front of about 600 supporters, McCain prefaced his pro-Yucca Mountain
comments by telling the audience that he must sometimes "tell people what they don't want to hear." "I support
Yucca Mountain once it goes through all of the process that it needs to go through," he said, to some applause.
"But I also support reprocessing" nuclear waste. The country needs to do both, McCain said. The Arizona senator
said the Carter administration in the 1970s stopped the reprocessing of nuclear waste in the United States, even
though it is done elsewhere in the world. McCain also reiterated comments from Tuesday that he would push for
an international facility where nuclear waste from around the world could be stored, "if it's possible to do that
and reach some international agreements where we can do that."On Tuesday, McCain told a crowd in Denver that
such a facility could eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. He did not repeat the comment in Reno. He did not
elaborate on the idea and did not speak to the media after the hourlong event at the Boys and Girls Club of Truckee
Meadows. McCain voted for Yucca Mountain as the site of a high-level nuclear waste repository in 2002, when
the Senate overrode Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the site. The vote was 60-39. McCain, who said he would battle to
win Nevada in November, said the country must end its reliance on foreign oil by exploiting the country's
natural resources but also by expanding the use of alternative energy sources, including solar and nuclear
power."The U.S. Navy has sailed ships around the world for more than 50 years with nuclear power plants," he
said. He disagreed with one questioner at the meeting who said oil exploration should be allowed in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. One key to encouraging further oil exploration around the country would be to offer states
such as California a larger share of revenue for favorable energy policies, McCain said. But states retain the right to
determine what happens off their shorelines, he said. The real answer to the nation's oil dependence is "batteries that
will take a car 100 miles before they have to plug it in. It's with hybrids. It's with nuclear. It's with wind. It's with
solar."Solar is a particularly attractive technology in Nevada and Arizona, McCain said.
McCain called nuclear energy "clean, safe and efficient" and said he supports the construction of 45
new reactors by 2030. The nation currently has 104 nuclear reactors, but has not built a new one in
more than 30 years, since before the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. He
acknowledged that such an endeavor would face many hurdles. "We will need to recover all the knowledge
and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain said. "We will
need to solve the complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."
McCain said he would commit $2 billion per year to clean-coal research and development, so the country
could further access its "oldest and most abundant" resource.
SDI 2008 208 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DA Spending links
Nuclear energy would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Jerry Taylor and Navin Nayar, Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research
Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, 6-21-03, Cato.org, “No Corporate
Welfare for Nuclear Power”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134, CM
The Senate energy bill provides $1.1 billion and whatever sums necessary thereafter to build and
operate a gas-cooled nuclear reactor that would attempt to generate both hydrogen and electricity at the
Idaho National Laboratory. If the proposed reactor ever becomes operational (which is not guaranteed)
the sale of electricity from this DOE-subsidized project would inappropriately distort commercial
electricity markets. The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government
providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear
power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated
that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget
Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent.
The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate
because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources." But that's not all.
The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal
government would buy back power from the newly built plants -- potentially at above market rates.
GNEP is an administration initiative aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide. It aims to reduce
proliferation risks by closing the fuel cycle through the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Even though the
waste fund is a trust fund and not part of the general treasury, it has been used in appropriations
processes over the years to help manage the federal budget deficit.
SDI 2008 215 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DA Terrorism - links
Nuclear power plants are terrorist targets.
Elaine Hiruo, 1-24-08, Nucleonics Week, DOE official: New president can't kill repository without law change,
lexis, bc
Edwards also took his comment a step further during the January 15 debate in Las Vegas by opposing the
construction of new nuclear reactors in the US because he doesn't think there is a safe way to dispose of the
waste. "I think they're dangerous, they're great terrorist targets, and they're extraordinarily expensive,"
he said of nuclear power plants.
NRC creates reports claiming there is a low risk of terrorism for dry storage casks but
those reports are highly flawed.
Elaine Hiruo, 7-16-08, Nuclear Fuel, Impact of terrorist attack on Yucca must be fully assessed, Loux says,
lexis, bc
The antinuclear San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace had challenged NRC's decision to license the Diablo
Canyon independent spent fuel storage installation, or Isfsi, claiming that a terrorist attack would have
"devastating" effects. NRC concluded in late May in a draft SEA on spent fuel dry storage at Diablo Canyon
that security requirements combined with design requirements for dry storage casks would provide
adequate protection against successful terrorist attacks on an Isfsi at a nuclear power plant (NF, 4 June,
14). Agency staff said that the construction and operation of an Isfsi at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s Diablo
Canyon plant would not have a significant impact on the environment. Loux maintained in his letter, which
responded to NRC's May 31 Federal Register notice on the availability of the draft SEA and finding of no
significant impact, that while Nevada concurs that "it is difficult to precisely quantify the likelihood of a
successful terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon ? or another NRC licensed facility ? the risk of an attack that
results in the release of radioactive material and subsequent human and environmental contamination is not
zero." Loux added that "a fully adequate assessment of the environmental impact of a terrorist attack
on an Isfsi can be accomplished with reasonable effort," but that in the case of Diablo Canyon, "NRC
staff seems to have devoted insufficient effort and produced an analysis that is incomplete,
unsupported, and unnecessarily opaque to outside scrutiny."
Nuclear Reactors and cooling ponds are easy targets for terrorists.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest)
He points to the nuclear cooling pond at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Huchanan, some 35 miles
north of Manhattan. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists could just as easily have flown their hijacked planes
into the cooling pond as into the World Trade Center. "If either of those planes had run into the
cooling pond near the reactor, it would have been a disaster the dimensions of which are hard to
imagine," Moore says. "People talked about it after 9/11. There were lots of calls in the New York state
government to shut down the power station at Indian Point because they thought that if there were a
terrorist attack of the sort of what I just described that millions of people would have had to evacuate
throughout not only New York, but into Connecticut and Massachusetts, too." This danger exists
everywhere there's a nuclear power plant, Moore says. And if the government does open a national
waste site, the risk of catastrophic accidents or terrorist attacks extends to our highways, railways and
urban centers. Plans for Yucca Mountain originally included transporting high-level nuclear waste through
Denver, with discussions at the time including various disaster scenarios should a truck wreck or explode in
the city's infamous Mouse Trap, the intersection of 1-25 and I-70.
SDI 2008 217 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
National academy admits Facilities are not prepared for all scenarios.
William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear
Leadership” (DS) Lexis
Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the site slated for a permanent geologic repository, has not received approval to
store this waste. Even if the license application is approved within the next few years, the Department of
Energy does not anticipate starting to store waste there until 2017, and, more realistically, not before 2020.
Meanwhile, spent fuel is accumulating in pools at nuclear power plants, increasing the risk of
radioactive release from sabotage or attack at these facilities. A recent U.S. National Academy of
Sciences study has concluded that “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are
possible.” Zirconium cladding provides a protective barrier around the spent fuel, but the cladding
could catch fire under some attack scenarios. According to the National Academy study, “If an attack
leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the release of large amounts of
radioactive materials.”
Studies saying dry casks are safe don’t account for the most obvious issues.
New York Times ’08 (2 Jul, journalist, New York Times, “Nuclear Agency Weighs Attack Threat at Plants”,
AB, Proquest
But the lawyer for the mothers’ group, Diane Curran, said that the commission staff had provided a list of
the background documents it relied on, and that these did not cover the threat described by her
group’s technical consultants. “The most obvious thing wasn’t even on the table, not even remotely,”
Ms. Curran said. In calculating the threat of accident, the commission takes into account the
probability of the event, and its consequences, but the commission has long argued that it is impossible
to calculate the probability of a terrorist attack and thus it does not need to take that threat into
account when approving installations like the cask storage. But the mothers’ group sued and demanded
an analysis of that risk, and in June 2006 won a favorable ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The commission staff then performed an environmental assessment,
which is an abbreviated version of an environmental impact statement, and concluded that there would be no
significant impact from the threat of terrorism against the casks. The details of how the staff reached that
conclusion were evidently murky even to one of the four commissioners who heard the case on Tuesday. The
commissioner, Gregory B. Jaczko, asked how the staff could assume that the risk was low if it could not
assign a numerical value to the likelihood of an attack. “Well, you have to use your judgment,” Ms. Clark
said. For accidents, she said, “we’re very comfortable, and we understand how to deal with probability,
how to evaluate it in quantitative terms.” But the threat of terrorism “is going to take us outside of that
familiar space,” she continued. Still, she asserted, “the staff’s judgment, based on their experience,”
indicated that this was not a threat to the environment. The casks, she said, were “robust.” Mr. Jaczko
responded, “So we’re down to the staff’s belief that this probably isn’t going to happen?” The chairman of
the commission, Dale E. Klein, tried through questions to make the case that even if an attack were
successful, people would be exposed to doses of radiation that were quite small. The mothers’ group was
advised by Gordon D. Thompson, a physicist, who said that the chimneylike design of the casks, intended to
keep the fuel from overheating, could help fan a fire. Ms. Clark argued that Mr. Thompson had not seen the
intelligence reports on the capabilities of terrorists, but Ms. Curran said equipment to do the job was
available to “subnational groups.” “It is clear that weapons are available that can penetrate a cask and
start a fire,” Ms. Curran said. “U.S. Army-shaped charges are more than capable of penetrating
concrete and armor plating.”
SDI 2008 218 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DA Terrorism – Impacts
Nuclear Power increases the risk of terrorism, proliferation, and creates terrorist targets
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
Pursuing nuclear power also perpetuates the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing
uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of
nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and
the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which
means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits
that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large
airplane. Such an attack, warns the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far
away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at
Chernobyl in 1986.
EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of
nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational.
They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn.
Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate.
But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons
would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States
and Western Europe, because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or
anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained
down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries.
And that -- it is very much in the interest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the
hands of Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests.
SDI 2008 219 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Loux maintained in his letter, which responded to NRC's May 31 Federal Register notice on the availability
of the draft SEA and finding of no significant impact, that while Nevada concurs that "it is difficult to
precisely quantify the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon ? or another NRC licensed
facility ? the risk of an attack that results in the release of radioactive material and subsequent human and
environmental contamination is not zero." Loux added that "a fully adequate assessment of the
environmental impact of a terrorist attack on an Isfsi can be accomplished with reasonable effort," but
that in the case of Diablo Canyon, "NRC staff seems to have devoted insufficient effort and produced
an analysis that is incomplete, unsupported, and unnecessarily opaque to outside scrutiny."
SDI 2008 220 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Berkley's communications director, David Cherry, said DOE seems to want "the efficiency of a private
undertaking paired with the power of the federal government to fund and license activities relating to nuclear
waste disposal, including the ability to overcome powerful opposition based on health, safety and cost issues."
Jon Summers, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, said DOE's
"radiation road show" to gain support for an alternative plan to advance Yucca Mountain is futile. "You can't
privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," he said. "The dump is not [going to be
built]." Summers said DOE can promote the idea to Republican lawmakers, but "Republicans are in the minority,
and not even all of them support Yucca Mountain anymore," he said. "The support for Yucca Mountain has softened
on Capitol Hill and among the nuclear industry itself." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would
need to pass legislation for DOE to restructure its nuclear waste program, said David Marks, a spokesman for panel
chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The committee has not seen any DOE proposal or presentation to that end,
Marks said. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman John Keeley said industry would support the idea of a government-
chartered corporation "conceptually," but added that "the devil is in the details." Keeley said NEI would be
concerned if the Nuclear Waste Fund were to be used to recycle spent fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, for example.
However, the federal government has been trying to create a long-term plan for the safe storage of
nuclear waste that would require these containers of spent fuel rods to be transported to a central location.
In 1987, Congress chose Yucca Mountain to be that site. Located in Nevada about 100 miles from the
nearest population center, the facility was supposed to house up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in
tunnels bored into the volcanic rock 1,000 feet below the mountain's summit. At the time some officials
even engaged in a discussion about how best to warn future inhabitants of the region-whoever happens
to be living in Nevada 100,000 years from now-that the site contained deadly radioactive material. Hut
that was the government getting ahead of itself. The selection of this particular site had more to do with
politics than science, critics say. In the end, concerns over the safety of transporting nuclear waste long
distances through urban centers, along highways and railways, together with possible seismic activity
at the site and lack of scientific agreement over the impact of groundwater on the containment of the
radioactive waste, brought any plans to use Yucca Mountain to a standstill.
The only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevada desert
about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste Fund was set
up in 1983. And it's likely to cost billions more as vociferous debate over the project drags on.
SDI 2008 223 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Radioactive waste cannot be stored and risks future generations-Yucca Mountain fails
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
Another problem is that high-level radioactive waste must be secured "in perpetuity," as the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences puts it. Yet the D.O.E. has already admitted that if nuclear waste is stored at
Nevada's Yucca Mountain, as has been proposed, future generations could not meet existing radiation
standards. As a result, the current U.S. administration's proposal is to allow future releases of radioactive
wastes, stored at Yucca Mountain, provided they annually cause no more than one person-out of every 70
persons exposed to them-to contract fatal cancer. These cancer risks are high partly because Yucca
Mountain is so geologically unstable. Nuclear waste facilities could be breached by volcanic or seismic
activity. Within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain, more than 600 seismic events, of magnitude greater than
two on the Richter scale, have occurred since 1976. In 1992, only 12 miles from the site, an earthquake
(5.6 on the Richter scale) damaged D.O.E. buildings. Within 31 miles of the site, eight volcanic
eruptions have occurred in the last million years. These facts suggest that Alvin Weinberg was right.
Four decades ago, the then director of the government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory warned that
nuclear waste required society to make a Faustian bargain with the devil. In exchange for current
military and energy benefits from atomic power, this generation must sell the safety of future
generations.
SDI 2008 226 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
Because the site is relatively close to Las Vegas' major groundwater supply in an area known for
earthquakes and volcanic activity, Reid said the application should, but does not prove the safeness of
the water storage containers, partly because they have not yet been designed. He added that the DOE
knows the containers will eventually corrode, allowing radiation to contaminate Nevada's drinking
water supply. The application's lack of an emergency response plan is another issue, he said.
Accidents from transporting nuclear waste would result in deaths, contaminated land, and
trillions of dollars of damage
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
Yet the D.O.E. predicts harm even in this generation. The department says that if 70,000 tons of the
existing U.S. waste were shipped to Yucca Mountain, the transfer would require 24 years of dozens of
daily rail or truck shipments. Assuming low accident rates and discounting the possibility of terrorist
attacks on these lethal shipments, the D.O.E. says this radioactive-waste transport likely would lead to
50 to 310 shipment accidents. According to the D.O.E., each of these accidents could contaminate 42
square miles, and each could require a 462-day cleanup that would cost $620 million, not counting
medical expenses. Can hundreds of thousands of mostly unguarded shipments of lethal materials be
kept safe? The states do not think so, and they have banned Yucca Mountain transport within their
borders. A better alternative is onsite storage at reactors, where the material can be secured from terrorist
attack in "hardened" bunkers.
Nuclear reprocessing will fail and cost billions (and then some)
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
During the cold war, the U.S. operated reprocessing plants in Washington State and South Carolina to
recover plutonium for nuclear weapons. More than half of the approximately 100 tons of plutonium
that was separated in those efforts has been declared to be in excess of our national needs, and the
DOE currently projects that disposing of it will cost more than $15 billion. The people who were
working at the sites where this reprocessing took place are now primarily occupied with cleaning up
the resulting mess, which is expected to cost around $100 billion. In addition to those military
operations, a small commercial reprocessing facility operated in upstate New York from 1966 to 1972.
It separated 1.5 tons of plutonium before going bankrupt and becoming a joint federal-state cleanup
venture, one projected to require about $5 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Previous attempts for recycling fuel have been put down – too expensive.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
The proposal to recycle U.S. spent fuel in this way is not new. Indeed, in the mid-1990s the DOE asked the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to carry out a study of this approach to reducing the amount
of long-lived radioactive waste. The resulting massive report, Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for
Separation and Transmutation, was very negative. The NAS panel concluded that recycling the
transuranics in the first 62,000 tons of spent fuel (the amount that otherwise would have been stored in
Yucca Mountain) would require “no less than $50 billion and easily could be over $100 billion”—in
other words, it could well cost something like $500 for every person in the U.S. These numbers would
have to be doubled to deal with the entire amount of spent fuel that existing U.S. reactors are expected
to discharge during their lifetimes.
SDI 2008 233 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
DA Nuclear Waste
Nuclear energy creates radioactive waste.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest)
The notion that nuclear energy is clean energy is misleading. Although nuclear power plants don't spew
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they generate toxic, radioactive waste-waste that is deadly for
thousands of centuries.
DA Meltdowns
Chernobyl and Three mile island prove meltdown risk is real-costing lives and money
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest)
But it isn't sympathy for Navajo miners and children that soured America's brief flirtation with nuclear
energy. The plug was pulled after a series of events-a reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Ala., in 1975, the
meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, and the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in
1986, which demonstrated vividly how dangerous nuclear power could be. The impact of Chernobyl,
the world's worst nuclear accident, is still being felt around the world, particularly in Belarus, which
received 70 percent of the fallout from the disaster and saw a sharp increase in childhood cancers,
thyroid cancer, leukemia and other radiation-related illnesses as a result. Swedish scientists blame an
estimated 849 cases of cancer on radioactive fallout from the disaster. An estimated 6.7 million people were
exposed to radiation as a result of the accident, in which human error led to an explosion. Some
estimates claim that 4,000 people worldwide will eventually die as a result of Chemobyl, while other
estimates go as high as 93,000. The explosion hasn't only proved to be deadly; it's also been very
expensive. The United Nations estimates the damage to Belarus' economy at $235 billion. The cleanup
effort, which is ongoing-the sarcophagus that houses the still-deadly reactor is in the midst of being
replaced at a cost of $800 million-continues to require global financial involvement. The "exclusion
zone" around the plant remains one of the most radioactive places in the world.
The DA turns the case if there is another accident it will cause worldwide antinuclear
backlash.
Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a special
report); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB
The safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes adopted in the wake of the Three Mile
Island accident. But safety problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't
adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries where nuclear power is likely to
expand don't have a strong system for regulating nuclear safety. The important thing to remember about
safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst
performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash
among the public and investors.
Nuclear Reactors are bad-(lack of investment, waste storage, terrorists, and meltdown)
Shreader-Frechette ‘08 (30Jun, Kristin Shreader-Frechette, biological sciences teacher and philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame and author, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, AB, Proquest)
ATOMIC ENERGY IS AMONG THE MOST impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private
financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the
likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also
provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United
States. The government's own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five
lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area
the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.
SDI 2008 235 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
CP States
States do energy better than the feds
James Hoare 12/1/07 “Idaho Governor Lobbying Hard for Nuclear Power” Published in The Environment &
Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22365&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
Noting the differences between the states and their comparative ability to produce power from
alternative sources, "Part of the problem is that federal solutions tend to be one-size-fits-all," Otter
noted at an October 1 sustainable development symposium at the University of Idaho. "That's
something the states seem to do better than the federal government."
Plan: The United States Federal Government should advocate and fund dry casks for nuclear waste
storage.
The counterplan provides a sufficient incentive to spur the nuclear industry and avoids all our permanent
repository and Yucca links and avoids the transportation links to the terrorism disadvantage.
Politics is a net benefit Using the dry-cask storage would allow time to inform the public
about waste disposal bypassing the massive political opposition to waste disposal.
PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at
the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste, nna
The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been
impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these
perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the
discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and
the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward
creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent
repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for
difficult social and political issues to be resolved.
CP International repository
Only international waste repositories solve high security, global environmental safety, and
global border security.
World Nuclear Association, September 2006, “International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts”, rks,
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf21.html.
Individual waste repositories for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level wastes need to be reliably
secure. Achieving high security means: (1) They can make a vital contribution to global environmental
safety by ensuring that radioactive substances are permanently removed from the human
environment, (2) They can greatly enhance global security in the broader sense by preventing
malicious use of fissile and radiological materials. Insofar as these functions are less than fully assured
in any of the 40 countries concerned with radioactive wastes, there is a justification for some kind of
international collaboration and facilities, possibly on a regional basis. In particular, the second point is
arguably best achieved by international collaboration under IAEA auspices. While most countries
should be able to find suitably safe sites in stable geological formations, demonstrating this safety so as to
create public confidence is best achieved where there is simple geology. Certainly, geological disposal is the
only foreseeable way of ensuring adequate safety and security in the long-term management of spent fuel and
high-level radioactive wastes. While acknowledging each county's responsibility for its own wastes, the
limits to the logic on indigenous disposal can be seen from the changing national borders within Europe over
the last century. For Slovenia for instance (which has one nuclear power reactor), its capital city Ljubljana
has politically lain within seven different states in the last 100 years.
An international repository would give the host nation significant economic benefits.
Alan Marshall, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2005, MIT Press: Global Environmental
Politics, “Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste”, rks,
http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v5y2005i2p1-9.html#author.
A country that is willing to share its repository with other countries can expect signiªcant economic
beneªts.2 An international repository, from this perspective, offers the chance for participating
countries to lower the management costs of nuclear waste via economies of scale, with the host country
beneªting most by receiving payment/ compensation to create a facility in which it can store its own
waste. Assuming economics can serve as a motivating force, what ethical issues does this throw up? If, as the
NRC Committee suggests “there is widespread acceptance of the fact that all countries are not independent in
all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and there is wide agreement that close co-operation in waste
management technology is to be encouraged,” then why, it argues, is it not possible to instigate a similar
trade in wastes? After all, if it is a free trade between independent partners, what is the problem? With
regards to non-radioactive waste, this question has been answered by the Basel Action Network (BAN) in
this way: We believe that free trade considerations should always be subservient to those of environment and
human health. We note that unbridled free trade in a world of disproportionate economic levels, sanctions
“toxic trade,” with hazardous wastes products and technologies ªnding their way via a global market to the
poorer regions of the world. For this reason, we believe that unilateral, regional, and global trade barriers (ie.
waste trade bans) are often necessary to protect the environment and health of all, particularly in developing
and newly industrializing countries.3
SDI 2008 242 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
With federal government spending through the roof and projected deficits setting new records every day, it is
perhaps surprising that the Bush administration and Congress want to use billions of taxpayer dollars to
single-handedly resurrect the moribund nuclear industry. Old habits, however, die hard. The federal
government has always maintained a unique public-private partnership with the nuclear industry,
wherein the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. In an
attempt to resuscitate this dying industry, the current Senate energy bill proposes unprecedented
federal support for nuclear power. Despite extensive and continuous government assistance --
including more than $66 billion in research and development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been
ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973. After building more than a hundred plants between 1954-1973,
orders have been cancelled over the last thirty years, and capacity in the industry has stagnated since 1989.
The decline of nuclear power is a result of several factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened
public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhoods grew. But
nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In
truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.
In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm,
commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations --
termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include
the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear
accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs;
federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at
taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful
interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince
investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear
generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the
marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder
from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before.
For certain parts of the nuclear-energy equation - in particular, the storage problem - financial benefits will
tilt the balance in decision-making. Quite simply, communities pressed to find new sources of income will
be more inclined to look favorably on the idea of hosting a nuclear facility, especially given the
construction costs and the compensation that frequently accompanies such decisions.
SDI 2008 248 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0
K Native Americans
Uranium mining devastates landscape and leaves radioactive tailings increasing cancer.
Pamela White, 5/8/08 (Metroland, Albany, staff write at Boulder Weekly, AB, “Goin’ Fission”, Proquest)
That waste begins when uranium ore is mined. Not only does the mining process devastate the
landscape like coal mining, it also leaves behind tons of radioactive uranium tailings that present a real
health hazard to anyone living nearby. On parts of the Navajo reservation where uranium mining
once provided scarce jobs, cancer rates are 17 times higher among Navajo teenagers than the
American population at large. Miners, too, suffer from radiation-related cancers and illnesses.
SDI 2008 249 of 249
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Power 4.0